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. Sephora USA, LLC

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and several former Sephora employees sued Sephora USA, LLC, alleging national origin discrimination under Title VII due to an "English-only" rule. This rule, outlined in an HR memorandum, required employees to speak English on the sales floor when clients were present, citing business necessity for customer service and approachability. Plaintiffs argued disparate impact and alleged inconsistent application of the policy, claiming managers enforced stricter "English-only" rules. The court granted Sephora's motion for partial summary judgment, determining that the written English language policy was job-related and consistent with business necessity. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a less discriminatory alternative to the policy.

English-only ruleNational Origin DiscriminationDisparate ImpactTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Summary JudgmentBusiness NecessityCustomer ServiceEmployment LawWorkplace Policy
References
29
Case No. ADJ10171082
Regular
Nov 05, 2019

Mercedes Cuevas vs. Pacific Union Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, Cambridge Administrators, LLC

This case concerns whether the defendant provided adequate notice to the applicant regarding her workers' compensation rights, specifically concerning the statute of limitations. The applicant, who does not speak English, received notices only in English, which may violate Labor Code Section 5401's requirement for notices to be available in both English and Spanish. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior findings and returned the case for further proceedings to determine if the statute of limitations should be tolled. The WCAB emphasized the need to investigate whether the applicant had actual knowledge of her rights and obligations despite the language barrier.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactPermanent Disability Benefits DenialReynolds v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Statute of LimitationsTollingSection 5401Spanish Language NoticeInformation and Assistance Officer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1982

Colonial Bank v. Worms

Colonial Bank initiated an action to enforce an English judgment against Martijn L. Worms. Worms argued the judgment should not be enforced due to a denial of due process and an inconvenient forum. The court rejected both arguments, finding English procedure compatible with due process and the English court a convenient forum. However, the court granted Worms leave to amend his answer to assert a third defense, claiming the underlying contract violated the Trading With the Enemy Act. The court stated that Colonial Bank's motion for summary judgment would be granted unless Worms provided sufficient evidence for his third defense by October 22, 1982.

Foreign Judgment EnforcementDue ProcessInconvenient ForumPersonal GuaranteeTrading With the Enemy ActSummary JudgmentLeave to AmendDefault JudgmentEnglish LawNew York CPLR
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Toribio

The case involves an uncontested proceeding for an administrator to resign and for a successor to be appointed. The initial administrator, Jennifer, wishes to resign from her role in the estate of her three-year-old sister, Jannin, who died tragically. She requests the court appoint their father, Domingo Toribio, as the new administrator. The primary legal question addressed by Surrogate Kristin Booth Glen is whether Mr. Toribio, who only speaks, reads, and writes in Spanish, is qualified to serve as a fiduciary under SCPA 707 (2), which allows a court discretion to declare a person unable to read and write English ineligible. The court examines the legislative intent, relevant case law, and societal changes regarding disability and non-English-speaking populations, particularly in New York City. The opinion concludes that English language competence should not be a prerequisite for fiduciary status unless no reasonable accommodations are possible, and grants the application for Jennifer's resignation and Domingo Toribio's appointment, noting he and his counsel have established satisfactory communication.

Estate AdministrationSurrogate's CourtFiduciary AppointmentLanguage BarrierEnglish ProficiencySCPA 707 (2)Multilingual SocietyJudicial DiscretionCivil RightsAccess to Justice
References
12
Case No. ADJ10431269 ADJ10588231
Regular
Feb 26, 2018

JUAN ALVARADO vs. DISCOVERY FOODS, LLC, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding a prior decision. The Board found that the employer, Discovery Foods, LLC, failed to prove applicant Juan Alvarado was adequately notified of his workers' compensation rights. Crucially, Labor Code section 5401(b) mandates notices be in both English and Spanish, and Alvarado does not read English. The Board clarified that general knowledge of the workers' compensation system does not equate to actual knowledge of potential eligibility for a specific injury. Finally, the employer waived the defense of laches by failing to raise it at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5401(b)Spanish language noticeActual knowledgePrejudiceStatute of limitationsTollingLachesWaiver
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allah v. Poole

Plaintiff Divine Allah, an inmate at Five Points Correctional Facility, filed a Section 1983 action against five correctional employees, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. His claims included a First Amendment free speech violation due to an English-only rule in the commissary and unlawful retaliation for filing grievances and participating in an ADA lawsuit, which led to his transfer to Involuntary Protective Custody (IPC). The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the English-only rule claim, deeming it a reasonable security measure. However, summary judgment was denied for the retaliation claim against Sergeant Joseph Keefe concerning the IPC transfer, as sufficient factual disputes existed for a jury. All other claims and defendants were dismissed.

Inmate RightsFirst AmendmentRetaliationFree SpeechEnglish-Only RuleInvoluntary Protective CustodySummary JudgmentConstitutional LawPrisoner Litigation Reform ActQualified Immunity
References
90
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Turkenich

Igor Turkenich was convicted of manslaughter after making inculpatory statements to police without Miranda warnings while confined in a psychiatric hospital. The statements concerned the death of his mother, Zinaida Turkenich, who died from a skull fracture and contusions. The defendant, a recent Russian immigrant with diminished mental capacity and unable to speak English, was interrogated by detectives at Metropolitan Hospital. Despite the detectives' initial intent to give Miranda warnings, a doctor advised against it due to the defendant's mental state. The trial court initially suppressed the statements but later reversed its ruling. On appeal, the court determined that the interrogation was custodial due to the defendant's involuntary confinement, mental condition, and lack of English proficiency, making the statements inadmissible without prior Miranda warnings. The judgment of conviction was reversed, the suppression motion granted, and a new trial ordered.

Miranda RightsCustodial InterrogationSuppression MotionManslaughter First DegreeMental CapacityInvoluntary ConfessionDue ProcessPsychiatric ConfinementInterpreter IssuesVoluntariness of Statements
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Velasquez v. Goldwater Memorial Hospital

Plaintiff Iris Velasquez sued her employers, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Elizabeth Lockhart, alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and New York human rights laws. Velasquez, a Hispanic patient representative, claimed she was fired for being Hispanic and for complaining about an alleged English-only language policy at Goldwater Memorial Hospital. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting Velasquez's probationary status and documented performance issues as legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination. The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that demonstrating an English-only policy alone was insufficient to prove discriminatory intent based on national origin. The retaliation claims were also dismissed, as Velasquez failed to show her employer was aware her complaints were about conduct prohibited by Title VII, or to establish a causal link for her Section 1983 claim.

National Origin DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliationSummary JudgmentEnglish-Only PolicyDisparate TreatmentPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingFirst Amendment RightsSection 1983
References
25
Case No. B371-2013, B372-2013
Regular Panel Decision

People v. English

The defendant was arrested for attempted kidnapping and compelling a 14-year-old to engage in prostitution. Incident to the arrest, an iPhone was seized and searched under warrant B371-2013, and an apartment was searched under warrant B372-2013. The defendant moved to controvert both search warrants. The court denied the motion regarding B371-2013, finding the search of the cell phone's contents did not exceed the warrant's scope given the flexibility afforded in digital searches and the plain view doctrine for other incriminating evidence. However, the court granted in part the motion regarding B372-2013, ruling that the warrant for the apartment's electronic devices lacked the necessary specificity under the Fourth Amendment, leading to the suppression of evidence seized from those devices. Evidence seized under the valid portions of B372-2013 (non-electronic items like a holster and ammunition) was deemed admissible.

Search warrantFourth AmendmentCell phone searchElectronic device searchParticularity requirementProbable causeSuppression of evidencePlain view doctrineDigital forensicsAttempted kidnapping
References
13
Case No. ADJ8838881
Regular
Jul 11, 2014

ALEXANDER ENGLISH vs. DALLAS MAVERICKS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for removal filed by the defendants, Dallas Mavericks and Zenith Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was filed on June 18, 2014, which was untimely. The original decision was issued on April 8, 2014, and the petitioner failed to file within the required 20-day period for personal service. The Board clarified that the 20-day deadline, not 25 days, applied, making the petition due by April 28, 2014.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingPersonal Service20-day DeadlineWCJ ReportStrom v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ8838881Oakland District OfficeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDALLAS MAVERICKS
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 59 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