CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Board of Higher Education & Professional Staff Congress/CUNY

This case addresses a petition to stay arbitration initiated by a petitioner against a respondent, representing Sandra Davis and Luis Rodriquez-Abad. The grievants, non-reappointed instructional staff at CUNY (Hunter College), sought arbitration alleging discrimination. The petitioner refused to process these grievances, citing a collective bargaining agreement clause (Section 20.7) that precludes arbitration for discrimination claims if a party has filed a claim in court or with a governmental agency. Sandra Davis had filed a Title VII lawsuit, and Luis Rodriquez-Abad had filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. The court, referencing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., ruled that while statutory rights cannot be prospectively waived, the contractual right to arbitration can be waived if a superior forum is chosen. Consequently, the court granted the petition to stay arbitration of the discrimination claim, allowing other claims to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementDiscriminationNonreappointmentTenureGrievance ProcedureTitle VIICivil Rights ActExecutive Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szpilzinger v. New York State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner challenged a determination by the respondent Division of Human Rights, which found that the petitioner had discriminated against a complainant by refusing to rent an apartment due to her race. The Division of Human Rights had ordered the petitioner to pay $25,000 in compensatory damages. The court dismissed the petition and confirmed the respondent’s determination. The evidence presented supported the finding that the petitioner discriminated against the claimant on the basis of her race by informing her the apartment was unavailable, while telling other inquirers it was available. The court also declined to reduce the award for compensatory damages, finding it not shocking to the court’s sense of fairness.

discriminationrace discriminationhousing discriminationapartment rentalcompensatory damagesExecutive Lawappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceshocking to court’s sense of fairnessDivision of Human Rights
References
2
Case No. AHM 0110026
Regular
Jun 12, 2008

SAMUEL C. OROPALLO vs. U.S. FOODSERVICES, INC., LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over an industrial injury and alleged Labor Code section 132a discrimination by U.S. Foodservices. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration but granted the employee's petition. The Board affirmed the original award but deferred the issues of reinstatement, lost wages/benefits, and costs related to the discrimination finding, remanding these to the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability IndemnityTransitional ProgramDiscriminationReinstatementLost Wages
References
0
Case No. ADJ2114868 (LAO 0878203) ADJ3881314 (LAO 0878204) ADJ4493553 (LAO 0861544)
Regular
Aug 23, 2010

ELLA MEZHIBURSKAYA vs. SUNNY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., also known as UNIVERSAL MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., illegally uninsured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration and granted the applicant's petition. The employer was found to have illegally discriminated against the applicant by filing a retaliatory civil complaint, violating Labor Code section 132a(1). The applicant was denied compensation for her claimed industrial injuries but was awarded costs and attorney's fees related to the discrimination claim. The Board amended the findings to specifically cite subdivision (1) of section 132a, removing any reference to subdivision (3).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeCumulative TraumaSpecific Industrial InjuryLabor Code Section 132aDiscrimination
References
0
Case No. ADJ3435344 (OAK 0335356), ADJ6942722
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

CHARLES KESECKER vs. MARIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding Labor Code section 4850 benefits but granted the defendant's petition regarding the Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to set aside the Compromise and Release agreement. However, it reversed the finding of a Labor Code section 132a violation, holding the employer's mandatory psychological fitness exam was a lawful requirement for peace officers, not discriminatory based on the industrial nature of the injury. Consequently, the $10,000 award for discrimination and associated attorney's fees were vacated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseTemporary Disability BenefitsLabor Code Section 4850Industrial InjuryPsycheHypertension
References
5
Case No. ADJ7703859
Regular
Aug 01, 2016

ELAINE CONNOR vs. SIERRA COUNCIL ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEPENDENCE, CARE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order that found no Labor Code section 132a discrimination. The applicant's petition primarily focused on a potential attorney's fee award for a deposition under Labor Code section 5710, which the original order did not address. The WCJ's report recommended granting reconsideration to award the requested attorney's fees, acknowledging the omission was inadvertent. The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition, amending the order to include the $1,557.50 attorney's fee award, and otherwise affirmed the original findings. The Board also dismissed the defendant's improper supplemental petition and denied their petition for sanctions against applicant's counsel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code 132aLabor Code 5710WCJAttorney's FeesDeposition FeesPetition for SanctionsWCAB Rule 10848Supplemental Filing
References
1
Case No. ADJ7837378; ADJ7837348 ADJ7981021; ADJ8193223
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

JESUS DOMINGUEZ vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior order that took the applicant's discrimination claim off calendar. The Board found the WCJ's reasoning for shelving the claim to be unsubstantiated, as the discrimination allegations and evidence required may be distinct from the applicant's primary injury claims. Consequently, the matters are returned to the trial level for a mandatory settlement conference and further proceedings on the discrimination claim. The Board expressed no opinion on the merits of the discrimination petition itself.

Petition for RemovalLabor Code section 132adiscriminationincreased benefitsoff calendarDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conferencewage discriminationjob assignment discriminationindustrial injuries
References
0
Case No. ADJ4098273 (ANA 0399921)
Regular
Apr 08, 2011

SHARIF EL KATAN vs. BASSETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., CORVEL SACRAMENTO

This case involves an unrepresented applicant who sent an unsigned letter to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) alleging discrimination by the assigned judge due to "mean look and angry voice." The WCAB dismissed the letter, construed as a petition for removal, because the applicant failed to identify an aggrieved "order or decision, or . . . action in issue." Additionally, the WCAB denied the petition for disqualification, adopting the judge's reasoning for doing so. The case remains set for trial.

Petition for removalPetition for disqualificationWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAdministrative Law JudgeGovernor Jerry BrownBassett Business ServicesInc.Corvel Sacramento
References
0
Case No. ADJ4192390 (SFO 0498367)
Regular
May 28, 2010

BRUCE MITCHELL vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The defendant sought to overturn an order that vacated submission, arguing it violated due process and wrongly linked the applicant's 132a discrimination claim to diminished future earning capacity. The WCAB found the vacated order was not final and that the 132a claim was indeed relevant and inextricably related to the earning capacity issue. Therefore, the WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision to further develop the record, finding no substantial prejudice to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Setting Aside DispositionLabor Code section 132adiminished future earnings capacityOgilvie v. City and County of San FranciscoMandatory Settlement Conferencestipulationdeferral
References
1
Case No. ADJ15495436
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

Calvin Grigsby vs. Grigsby and Associates, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered two petitions from the applicant, Calvin Grigsby: a December 9, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal, and a December 24, 2024 Petition for Removal. The Board dismissed the reconsideration aspect of the December 9th petition as it pertained to non-final orders and denied removal, finding no demonstration of irreparable harm. The subsequent December 24th petition was also dismissed as it challenged the same December 4, 2024 orders. The Board also noted the applicant's failure to comply with page limits for the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNonfinal OrdersLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSupplemental Pleadings
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 15,525 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational