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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Melissa Castillo brought claims of sex discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge against Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., William Rappaport, and Herbie Gonzalez under Title VII. Castillo sought to intervene in the EEOC's action and assert additional state and city claims, while the defendant moved to compel arbitration of Castillo's claims based on an employment arbitration agreement. The court granted Castillo's motion to intervene and permitted her state and local claims to proceed under supplemental jurisdiction. The court also granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration for all of Castillo's claims, determining that the arbitration agreement was an employer-promulgated plan and the associated costs would not be prohibitively expensive. The EEOC's action was not stayed, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement, but Castillo's individual proceedings were stayed pending arbitration.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationConstructive DischargeTitle VIIArbitration AgreementInterventionEmployment DiscriminationFederal Arbitration ActSupplemental JurisdictionEEOC Enforcement Action
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Johnson & Higgins

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Johnson & Higgins (J&H) over a mandatory pre-65 retirement policy that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court previously found J&H liable and issued an injunction. J&H then sought partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for monetary and injunctive relief based on waivers signed by thirteen retired employee-directors, who had received $1,000 in exchange for waiving ADEA rights. The retired directors later repudiated these waivers, citing conflict of interest, economic duress, and undue influence. The EEOC opposed the waivers, arguing inadequate consideration, lack of voluntariness, and that J&H negotiated them without EEOC participation after a finding of liability. The District Court denied J&H's motion for summary judgment, finding material issues of fact regarding the adequacy of consideration and the voluntariness of the waivers. The court also held that waivers entered into after a finding of liability and without EEOC participation are invalid as a matter of law.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActADEAWaiversSummary JudgmentKnowing and VoluntaryConsiderationOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActOWBPARepudiation of WaiversEEOC Litigation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
26
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1990

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 580

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce subpoenas against entities related to defendants Local 580 and AJEF to uncover their true financial condition. The defendants claimed financial impossibility in complying with a consent judgment regarding discrimination. After a Special Master's initial denial of discovery for certain years was overturned by the court, the defendants and non-parties moved to vacate the Special Master's revised order and dismiss EEOC's appeal, citing procedural irregularities. The court denied their motion, affirming the relevance of the financial records and rejecting their procedural arguments, as well as denying a request for interlocutory appeal certification and a stay of production.

Employment DiscriminationContempt of CourtConsent Judgment EnforcementDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Duces TecumSpecial Master AuthorityFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureInterlocutory AppealUnion FinanceApprenticeship Programs
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1987

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waterfront Commission

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor (WC) and other employer-defendants, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The dispute centered on whether the WC, in its licensing capacity for pier guards, qualified as an "employer" under the ADEA. The court granted summary judgment for the WC, concluding it was not an employer in its licensing role, distinguishing it from cases involving direct employment or significant control without state police power. The court also dismissed claims against all other employer-defendants, and initially sanctioned the EEOC attorney, though this sanction was later vacated upon reconsideration. Ultimately, the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActSummary JudgmentEmployer DefinitionWaterfront CommissionLicensing AuthorityEEOCPier GuardsRule 11 SanctionsReconsiderationInterstate Compact
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Incorporated Village of Valley Stream

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against the Incorporated Village of Valley Stream, alleging age discrimination against volunteer firefighters over 65 by not allowing them to accrue credit towards a 'service award' under the Length of Service Award Program (LOSAP), in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The discrimination occurred between 1992 and 2003, with an amendment in 2004 removing age restrictions but without retroactive credit. Both the EEOC and Valley Stream moved for summary judgment. Valley Stream raised defenses including statute of limitations, state law constraints, and the employment status of volunteer firefighters under the ADEA. The court denied both motions, ruling that the action was not time-barred, state law did not constrain Valley Stream's actions in the alleged manner, and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether volunteer firefighters qualify as 'employees' under the ADEA.

Age DiscriminationADEAVolunteer FirefightersService AwardsLOSAPStatute of LimitationsLachesEmployment StatusSummary JudgmentNew York Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chrysler Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) initiated an action against Chrysler Corporation, alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by denying severance pay to older employees, Irving A. Zinn and Jack Gioglio, who opted for early retirement following the sale of Chrysler's Manhattan facility. Chrysler's severance plan excluded those who chose early retirement, a benefit available to employees age 55 and over. Chrysler filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred and failed to state a prima facie case. The court found that while a non-willful ADEA claim could fall under an ADCAA extension, the severance plan qualified for an exemption under ADEA Section 4(f)(2) as a bona fide employee benefit plan, not a subterfuge, and did not compel involuntary retirement. Consequently, the court granted Chrysler's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.

Age DiscriminationADEASeverance PayEarly RetirementStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissWillful ViolationBona Fide Employee Benefit PlanSubterfuge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Kidder, Peabody & Co. Incorporated, alleging a pattern and practice of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) against investment bankers over the age of 40. Kidder Peabody moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the EEOC should be precluded from obtaining individual relief for claimants who had signed valid securities industry arbitration agreements. The Court, citing Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., determined that the EEOC could not seek monetary relief on behalf of individuals subject to arbitration agreements, as this would frustrate the purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court also rejected the EEOC's waiver argument. Consequently, Kidder Peabody's motion to dismiss was granted, closing the action.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawADEAArbitration AgreementMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)EEOC EnforcementMonetary ReliefClass ActionWaiver
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New York State

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against the New York Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (State Parks) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The dispute arose because New York amended its Civil Service Law in 1990 to apply age restrictions (21-29) to park patrol officers, a position previously exempt from such limits, effectively discriminating against applicants over 40. The EEOC argued this change violated the ADEA, as it expanded age restrictions beyond what was in place on March 3, 1983, and therefore did not fall under the ADEA's § 623(j) exception. The court, referencing similar cases, agreed with the EEOC's interpretation that the ADEA prevents the expansion of age restrictions to new categories of employees. Consequently, the court found State Parks liable, ruling that applying the new age requirements to park patrol officers violated the ADEA.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActEmployment DiscriminationPublic EmploymentLaw Enforcement OfficersPark Patrol OfficersNew York Civil Service LawStatutory InterpretationGrandfather Clause ExceptionFederal PreemptionState Law Amendments
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 10,732 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