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

CLARA C. v. William L.

The concurring opinion, penned by Judge Levine, addresses the unconstitutionality of Family Court Act § 516 as applied to Thomas L. C., arguing it denies the child equal protection under the law. While judicial restraint typically advises against reaching constitutional issues, the opinion asserts this rule is not absolute, especially when public interest and recurring issues necessitate prompt resolution. It challenges the State's interests previously upheld in Bacon v Bacon, citing subsequent legal developments and advancements in genetic testing, which have significantly reduced the "complex and difficult problems of proof" in paternity cases. The opinion concludes that the discriminatory treatment of nonmarital children under § 516, which bars them from seeking paternity adjudication and support based on a father's current means, lacks a substantial relationship to a legitimate State interest. Therefore, it advocates for reversing the order and remitting the case to Family Court, Kings County, with a declaration that Family Court Act § 516 is unconstitutional as applied.

Equal Protection ChallengeFamily Court Act Section 516Paternity ProceedingsNonmarital Children's RightsChild Support AgreementsConstitutional ScrutinyGenetic Testing EvidenceJudicial Precedent OverhaulState Interest DoctrineParental Support Modification
References
19
Case No. ADJ7298159
Regular
Feb 03, 2014

Keisha Boston vs. Regents of University of California

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves an employee's discriminatory termination claim under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant alleged a continuing pattern of discriminatory conduct by the employer from her return-to-work date until her eventual termination. Initially, a WCJ found the claim untimely, asserting it was filed more than three years after the last discriminatory act. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and found the claim timely. The Board concluded that the applicant's section 132a petition, filed on October 21, 2011, was within one year of her termination and the last alleged discriminatory act on November 1, 2011, thus preserving the claim.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineDiscriminatory ActTerminationIndustrial InjuryPrima Facie CaseStipulations and AwardInteractive Process
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Planas

Plaintiff Ronnie Smith sued Graeie Square Hospital (GSH) for race discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981, alleging failure to promote and harassment. GSH moved for summary judgment. The court found that Smith failed to establish a prima facie case for discriminatory promotion, as many of the employees promoted instead of him were also black. Furthermore, GSH provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its substitution policy. Regarding the harassment claim, Smith provided only conclusory allegations without evidence of racial comments or disparate treatment. Finally, the court ruled that Smith's Section 1981 claim was not cognizable as the alleged discriminatory acts occurred before the 1991 Civil Rights Act, which has no retroactive application. Therefore, the court granted GSH's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Race DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseHostile Work EnvironmentFailure to PromoteDisciplinary ActionPretext
References
25
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07224
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2025

Keenan v. Bloomberg L.P.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order denying defendant Bloomberg L.P.'s motion to dismiss plaintiff Susan Keenan's complaint. The court rejected the untimeliness argument, stating that the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory acts could constitute a continuing pattern of unlawful conduct. Plaintiff successfully stated causes of action for employment discrimination based on gender and age, hostile work environment, retaliation, and violations of the New York State and New York City Human Rights laws. Additionally, claims under New York's Equal Pay Act and for disparate impact, regarding a discriminatory evaluation system and pay disparity, were found sufficiently pleaded.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationAge DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationEqual Pay ActDisparate ImpactHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaworski v. Westplex Corp.

Plaintiff Mary A. Jaworski initiated this action against Westplex Corporation, alleging age and sex discrimination following her termination as a Human Resources Manager during a company-wide reduction in force. Jaworski asserted violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the New York Human Rights Law, claiming she was replaced by a significantly younger employee and received lesser separation benefits than her male counterparts. Westplex moved for summary judgment, presenting financial difficulties and length of service as legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions. The court determined that while Jaworski established a prima facie case, she failed to sufficiently rebut the defendant's articulated non-discriminatory reasons. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Age DiscriminationSex DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSummary Judgment MotionReduction in ForceSeverance PayADEA ClaimsTitle VII ClaimsNew York Executive LawDiscrimination Lawsuit
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waisome v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Felix Waisome, along with other Black applicants, initiated a class action against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, Inc., alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The plaintiffs claimed that the Port Authority's promotion selection criteria for police sergeants had an adverse, discriminatory impact on Black applicants. Waisome sought class certification and partial summary judgment on liability, while the Port Authority cross-moved for summary judgment. The court granted class certification but ultimately sided with the defendants, concluding that the statistical disparities in selection rates were insufficient, both in practical and legal terms, to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory impact. Consequently, summary judgment was granted for the defendants, and the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionTitle VIICivil Rights ActDisparate ImpactStatistical SignificanceSummary JudgmentPolice PromotionsRule 23Rule 56
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gilman v. Runyon

Plaintiff Robert Gilman, formerly employed by the U.S. Postal Service, sued Postmaster General Marvin T. Runyon, alleging retaliation discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gilman claimed supervisors Earlene Toole and Rudolph Rizzuto suspended him twice and ultimately discharged him for filing employment discrimination complaints. Defendant argued the disciplinary actions were due to Gilman's misconduct, including failing to follow orders and assaulting co-workers. The court, presided over by District Judge Baer, found that while the discipline was severe, the Postal Service did not act for discriminatory reasons. The court concluded that Gilman failed to prove a causal connection between his protected activities and the adverse employment actions, and that the supervisors had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their decisions. Consequently, the court dismissed Gilman’s consolidated complaints.

RetaliationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIU.S. Postal ServiceMisconductSuspensionTerminationMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPretextCausal Connection
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Urmey v. AT & T CORP.

Plaintiff John Urmey sued his former employer, AT & T Corp., alleging unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Urmey claimed AT & T refused to provide reasonable accommodation for his disability, fostered a hostile work environment, retaliated against him, and unlawfully terminated him. AT & T moved for partial summary judgment, arguing judicial estoppel on the discriminatory termination claim due to Urmey's representation to the Social Security Administration that he was "unable to work." The court granted partial summary judgment for AT & T on the discriminatory termination claims under the ADA and LAD, finding Urmey judicially estopped. However, the court denied AT & T's motion regarding the hostile work environment and claims for back and front pay, citing disputed material facts and the continuing violation doctrine.

Disability DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VII of Civil Rights ActNew Jersey Law Against DiscriminationJudicial EstoppelSummary JudgmentQualified Individual with a DisabilityReasonable Accommodation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2007

Heinemann v. Howe & Rusling

Plaintiff Marion Heinemann sued her former employer, Howe & Rusling, Inc., and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as retaliation and Equal Pay Act violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied summary judgment for the plaintiff's Title VII claims (sex discrimination and retaliation) and the Equal Pay Act claim, finding sufficient evidence of pretext and discriminatory intent to warrant a jury trial. However, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims, concluding that the plaintiff failed to present enough evidence for these specific allegations. The case will proceed to trial on the sex discrimination, retaliation, and Equal Pay Act claims.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationEqual Pay ActSummary Judgment MotionFederal CourtWestern District of New YorkWorkplace HarassmentPerformance ManagementAdverse Employment Action
References
56
Case No. 09 Civ. 9171; 09 Civ. 10293
Regular Panel Decision

Oluyomi v. Napolitano

Plaintiff Alaba Oluyomi, acting pro se, filed two lawsuits (09 Civ. 9171 and 09 Civ. 10293) against defendants Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (collectively, 'the Government'). The plaintiff alleged discrimination based on race, color, and national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His claims included two instances of failure to promote and two incidents of disciplinary action (a one-day and a fourteen-day suspension), also alleging retaliation for prior EEO activity. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein found that the Government provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its employment decisions, such as poor interview performance, lack of relevant experience, condescending behavior, and insubordination. Oluyomi failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these reasons were pretextual or that the Government's actions were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Consequently, the court denied Oluyomi's motions for summary judgment and granted the Government's motions, leading to the dismissal of both consolidated cases.

Title VIIEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationFailure to PromoteWorkplace DisciplineSummary JudgmentMagistrate JudgeUnited States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)Department of Homeland Security (DHS)Race Discrimination
References
60
Showing 1-10 of 3,908 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