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. 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 The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and found the claim timely.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

Tosha Restaurants, LLC v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Shane A. Fuller was terminated from his part-time dishwasher position at a Denny's Restaurant due to a skin condition (psoriasis and cellulitis). He filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging disability discrimination. The Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Commissioner of Human Rights found the employer guilty of an unlawful discriminatory practice under Executive Law § 296 and awarded Fuller damages for lost pay, counseling, and pain and suffering. The employer (petitioner) commenced a proceeding to annul this determination. The court reviewed the employer's explanations for termination (customer complaints, health concerns, scheduling issues) and found them to be pretexts for discrimination. The court confirmed the determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights and dismissed the employer's petition.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationPsoriasisCellulitisUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeExecutive LawHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative DeterminationPretext for Discrimination
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kerman-Mastour v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

Tahra Kerman-Mastour sued her former employers, FINRA, alleging gender and religious discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law. Kerman claimed her termination was due to discriminatory animus related to her pregnancies and religious observance, and in retaliation for advocating for changes to FINRA's maternity leave policy. FINRA asserted that her termination stemmed from long-standing performance issues, including incomplete work and untimely case completion, documented by multiple negative evaluations and a Performance Improvement Plan. The District Court granted FINRA's motion for summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or a causal connection for retaliation, and that Kerman failed to rebut FINRA's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationRetaliationNew York City Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPerformance Improvement PlanMaternity LeaveOrthodox Jew
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.

Plaintiff William Bell, an African-American man, filed an action against his employers Energetix, RG & E, and Griffith Oil, along with individual supervisors, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the New York Human Rights Law, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Bell's claims included a hostile work environment and discriminatory/retaliatory discharge after he was terminated for unauthorized attempts to alter his wife's billing account in the company's computer system. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Bell failed to establish a prima facie case for his discrimination claims and could not rebut the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his termination. The court also ruled against the admissibility of a purported racist email as direct proof, citing lack of authentication, and found that the decision-maker for Bell's termination did not exhibit discriminatory animus.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliatory TerminationHostile Work EnvironmentFMLA RetaliationSummary Judgment GrantedMcDonnell DouglasPretext EvidenceEvidence AuthenticationElectronic Mail Evidence
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. ADJ758865 (STK 0174694) ADJ4162177 (STK 0174696)
Regular
Apr 09, 2012

BERTHA GRIFFIN vs. ARV ASSISTED LIVING, INC./ATRIA SENIOR LIVING GROUP, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who alleged industrial injury and a subsequent discriminatory termination. The applicant's claims were settled, but the employer unreasonably delayed payment of the settlement proceeds. Furthermore, the employer terminated the applicant shortly after her industrial injury, violating Labor Code section 132a. The Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's findings, upholding penalties for the delayed payment and the discriminatory termination.

Labor Code Section 132aLabor Code Section 5814Order Approving Joint Compromise and ReleaseUnreasonable DelayIndustrial InjuryWrongful TerminationPenaltyPetition for ReconsiderationDue ProcessSubstantial Evidence
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Conklin v. City of Newburgh

The claimant, a probationary laborer, was injured on his third day of employment with the City of Newburgh. He was terminated on January 11, 1989, due to his lengthy absence caused by the work-related injury. The claimant filed a complaint under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, alleging discriminatory discharge. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the termination was due to his inability to perform his job and prolonged absence, not discriminatory intent. On appeal, the claimant contended that the Board's determination lacked substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no support for an inference of retaliatory termination and that the City's actions were reasonable steps to secure a steady workforce.

DiscriminationWorkers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAbsenteeismWork-related InjuryEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCausal NexusProbationary Employee
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1995

Dean v. Pepsi-Cola Binghamton Bottlers

Plaintiff Denise Dean sued Pepsi-Cola Binghamton Bottlers under Title VII, alleging discriminatory termination due to pregnancy. A jury found in favor of Dean regarding discriminatory termination on June 1, 1995, but found no cause of action for hostile work environment. The defendant subsequently filed motions for a directed verdict under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 and a new trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. The court reviewed the extensive and conflicting testimony regarding Dean's job performance and alleged discriminatory comments. Ultimately, the court denied both of the defendant's motions, upholding the jury's original verdict.

pregnancy discriminationTitle VIIemployment lawdiscriminatory terminationjury verdictdirected verdictnew trialRule 50Rule 59circumstantial evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peralta v. Roros 940, Inc.

Plaintiff Ashley Peralta filed a discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, Roros 940, Inc., and its principal, John P. Roros. She alleged gender and pregnancy discrimination, leading to a hostile work environment and wrongful termination in violation of Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the Title VII hostile work environment claim, but denied it regarding the Title VII discriminatory termination claim and all NYCHRL claims. The court found sufficient evidence of pretext and discriminatory animus concerning the termination, but not for a severe or pervasive hostile work environment.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINYCHRLMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPretext
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mangaroo v. BOUNDLESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Plaintiff Kareem Mangaroo, a former employee, filed suit against Boundless Technologies Inc. and four individual employees for race discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985(3), ERISA, and breach of contract under New York law. Mangaroo alleged discriminatory termination, pre-termination discipline, and denial of promotions and timely performance reviews. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for their actions. The Court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing all federal claims on the grounds that Mangaroo failed to demonstrate pretext for discrimination, particularly regarding his termination for insubordination. The breach of contract claim was dismissed without prejudice, declining pendent jurisdiction.

Race DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Section 1985(3)ERISABreach of ContractSummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationInsubordinationDisparate Treatment
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 2,467 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