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

Beattie v. Farnsworth Middle School

Plaintiff Patricia Beattie, a part-time paraprofessional, filed a sex discrimination action against the Guilderland Central School District and several individual defendants, alleging sexual harassment by Roger Levinthal and retaliation after she reported the harassment. The court addressed motions to dismiss, finding that the sexual harassment claims were largely time-barred under Title VII due to the continuing violation exception not applying, and employer liability for co-worker harassment was not established for the physical acts. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim, finding sufficient facts to support a prima facie case. Individual defendants' motions to dismiss for individual liability under HRL and Section 1983 were granted, except for Roger Levinthal. The Section 1985 conspiracy claim was also dismissed for lack of specific discriminatory animus.

Sexual harassmentRetaliationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSection 1983Continuing violation doctrineHostile work environmentEmployer liabilityIndividual liabilityPrima facie case
References
44
Case No. 11 Misc 3d 739
Regular Panel Decision

Farrugia v. North Shore University Hospital

Plaintiff Thomas Farrugia, a white male lab technologist at North Shore University Hospital, filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and national origin discrimination under New York State and New York City Human Rights laws. The plaintiff asserted claims of sexual harassment by a female coworker and discrimination based on his national origin. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing the gender discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation claims. However, the sexual harassment claims were allowed to proceed, with evidence limited to conduct occurring from January 2000 onward under the continuing discrimination doctrine.

sexual harassmentnational origin discriminationgender discriminationhostile work environmentretaliationsummary judgmentNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Lawcontinuing violation doctrineemployment discrimination
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2008

Krikelis v. Vassar College

Plaintiff Arlene Krikelis sued Vassar College and Aramark Campus Services, alleging sex and disability discrimination and retaliation in her employment. Her claims included disability discrimination related to her diabetes, gender-based pay discrimination as a cook, a hostile work environment due to a coworker's harassment, and retaliation for her complaints. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the disability discrimination claims, ruling her diabetes was not a substantially limiting disability under the ADA or NYHRL. However, the court denied summary judgment on the gender-based pay discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims, finding that sufficient factual disputes warranted trial.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionWorkplace Harassment
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sowemimo v. D.A.O.R. Security, Inc.

Plaintiff Debrah Sowemimo sued D.A.O.R. Security, Inc., her supervisor Mohammed Islam, the NYC Department of Homeless Services (DHS), and Deputy Director Leandra Barbieri, alleging employment discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliatory discharge, racial discrimination, negligence, and intentional torts. Sowemimo claimed Islam sexually harassed and assaulted her, and Barbieri made racial slurs. The court denied summary judgment for D.A.O.R. on sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge claims, and for Islam on sexual harassment and intentional torts. However, summary judgment was granted for DHS and Barbieri on all claims, and for D.A.O.R. on negligence and intentional torts, finding DHS was not Sowemimo's employer and D.A.O.R.'s conduct didn't meet the threshold for emotional distress.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliatory DischargeRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawEmployer LiabilityVicarious Liability
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 1993

Cruz v. Ecolab Pest Elimination Division, Ecolab Inc.

Plaintiff Barbara Cruz sued her former employer Ecolab Inc. and two individual defendants, Steven Mosh and Henry Marcantonio, alleging discriminatory discharge, discrimination in hiring, and sexual harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 based on sex and national origin. The court dismissed the Title VII claims for discrimination in hiring and sexual harassment due to lack of prior agency filing, but allowed the § 1981 racial discrimination in hiring claim to proceed. Cruz's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was dismissed for failing to meet the

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRacial DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationSex DiscriminationSexual HarassmentInsufficient Service of ProcessIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSubject Matter JurisdictionPendent Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Payano v. Fordham Tremont CMHC

Plaintiff Pedro Payano, proceeding pro se, sued his former employer, Fordham-Tremont Community Mental Health Center, alleging racial discrimination and sexual/racial harassment under Title VII. Payano claimed he was terminated due to discrimination and subjected to a hostile work environment. Fordham-Tremont moved for summary judgment, asserting Payano's termination was performance-related and the harassment claims did not meet the legal standard. The court granted the defendant's motion, finding Payano failed to establish a prima facie case for discriminatory discharge and that his harassment allegations were insufficient to prove a hostile work environment, further noting the employer's successful Burlington/Faragher affirmative defense.

Title VIIRacial DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentDiscriminatory DischargeSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseAffirmative DefenseBurlington/Faragher DefenseEmployment Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

Barnhart v. Town of Parma

The case concerns plaintiff Bruce Barnhart's claims of age discrimination, gender-based harassment, and retaliation by his supervisor Al Leone against his employer, the Town of Parma. Another employee, Paul Eichas, also filed similar discrimination and retaliation charges against the Town. Barnhart sought to amend his complaint to add gender-based discrimination and same-sex harassment claims under Title VII, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and to include Eichas as a co-plaintiff. The United States Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson granted Barnhart's motion, concluding that the claims were logically related and served judicial economy. The court also determined that the proposed Section 1983 claim for municipal liability, based on theories of governmental acquiescence or actions by a final decision-making official, was sufficiently pleaded to proceed.

Employment DiscriminationAge Discrimination in Employment ActTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York State Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. § 1983Same-sex HarassmentRetaliationMotion to Amend ComplaintJoinder of PartiesMunicipal Liability
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mock v. City of Rome

Plaintiff Michael Mock sued the City of Rome and its Police Department, alleging discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and New York Military Law. Mock claimed harassment based on his military status and denial of promotions. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the absence of a hostile work environment, lack of direct evidence for promotional discrimination, and the non-existence of a private right of action under New York Military Law section 318, also asserting the defense of laches. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the harassment claim and dismissed the City of Rome Police Department as a suable entity. However, the court denied summary judgment on the failure to promote claim and the state law discrimination claim, finding genuine issues of material fact. The laches defense was also denied.

USERRAMilitary DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationFailure to PromoteHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentNew York Military LawLachesPolice DepartmentPublic Employee Rights
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

Stepheny v. Brooklyn Hebrew School for Special Children

Plaintiffs Maria and Gregory Stepheny, an interracial married couple, brought employment discrimination suits against their former employer, the Brooklyn Hebrew School for Special Children. Maria alleged a racially hostile work environment, race discrimination, and retaliation, while Gregory claimed a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation, citing violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Their termination in May 2001 followed a verbal and physical altercation with a co-worker, Nekeya Black, stemming from Gregory's prior extramarital affair with Black. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that any alleged harassment was due to personal animosity from the affair, not discrimination, and that the plaintiffs' termination was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons related to workplace misconduct. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding that the alleged harassment was not based on race or sex, was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and the employer took reasonable remedial action. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of pretext in the termination decision.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIISection 1981New York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartniak v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.

Danuta Bartniak filed an amended complaint against her former employer, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., alleging sexual harassment, national origin discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge under Title VII and New York laws. The court previously denied Cushman's summary judgment motion. During the trial, claims of national origin discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, and punitive damages were dismissed, leaving only the hostile work environment claim. The jury found that Bartniak was subjected to a hostile work environment by a co-worker but that Cushman had exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct sexual harassment, and Bartniak unreasonably failed to take advantage of corrective opportunities. Bartniak renewed her motion to strike Cushman's affirmative defense and moved for a new trial, citing alleged errors in excluded exhibits and jury instructions on sexual favoritism. Cushman renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial, and also for summary judgment on the timeliness of the EEOC charge. The court denied Bartniak's motions, finding that Cushman did not bear the burden of proving an affirmative defense in a co-worker harassment case and that the jury's verdict was supported by evidence. Cushman's motions were denied as moot, and judgment was entered for Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIEmployment DiscriminationEmployer LiabilityCo-worker HarassmentAffirmative DefenseRule 50 MotionRule 59 MotionJury Verdict
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,859 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