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

Nghiem v. United States Department of Veteran Affairs

Plaintiff, an Asian-American geriatric dentist, alleged racial and ethnic discrimination and other torts following her 1993 termination from the Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Bronx, New York. She sued the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and four individual supervisors. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as time-barred. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing all federal claims, including those under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title VII, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationWrongful TerminationCivil RightsDue ProcessStatute of LimitationsSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissFederal EmploymentVeterans Affairs
References
70
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

Figueroa v. Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden

Carlos Figueroa, an Office Clerk/Chauffeur for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden and the Permanent Mission of Sweden to the United Nations, filed claims for personal injury, retaliation, and discrimination. The defendants sought dismissal based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Court found the plaintiff's employment, primarily as a chauffeur for diplomats, to be a governmental function, thus granting sovereign immunity for the discrimination and retaliation claims. However, the Court denied dismissal for a breach of a separate tolling agreement, deeming it a commercial activity not subject to immunity. The motion for partial dismissal was therefore granted in part and denied in part.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities ActCommercial Activity ExceptionEmployment DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimsBreach of ContractDiplomatic ImmunitySovereign ImmunityChauffeur EmploymentGovernmental FunctionSwedish Mission
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hellstrom v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

Plaintiff Hellstrom filed a complaint against Defendants, including the United States Dep't of Veterans Affairs, Thomas, and Ho-lyoke, alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process and First Amendment retaliation violations after his reassignment. The initial summary judgment for defendants was vacated and remanded by the Second Circuit for lack of discovery. Upon renewed motion, the Court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims. It found plaintiff's speech regarding Defendant Thomas's qualifications was a personal employee dispute, not a matter of public concern, and lacked causal connection to his reassignment. Similarly, plaintiff's statement against affirmative action was deemed a personal defense against discrimination charges, not protected public speech.

First AmendmentDue ProcessRetaliationSummary JudgmentPublic Employee SpeechEmployment DiscriminationVeterans AffairsWorkplace ReassignmentPublic Concern DoctrineCausation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Love v. City of New York Department of Consumer Affairs

Cheryl D. Love sued her former employer, the Department of Consumer Affairs of the City of New York (DCA), under Title VII, alleging gender discrimination, national origin discrimination, and a hostile work environment. DCA moved for summary judgment on all claims, which the court granted. The court found insufficient evidence to support Love's claims of gender and national origin discrimination, as the alleged conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. Her retaliation claim also failed because she did not report harassment to DCA before her termination, and DCA provided legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for her dismissal, citing declining performance and absences during her probationary period.

Title VIIGender DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentRetaliation ClaimAdverse Employment ActionProbationary EmployeePerformance EvaluationEEOC
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Speedway Home Improvement Co. v. Gourdine

Speedway Home Improvement Co. (Speedway), a licensed contractor, challenged a decision by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Speedway had contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Hannon for home renovation, but after commencing work and receiving partial payments, abandoned the project due to alleged underestimation, demanding further price increases which the Hannons refused. The Hannons filed a complaint with DCA, which, after a hearing, found Speedway guilty of abandoning the contract without justification and awarded the Hannons $21,110. Speedway argued that the DCA hearing denied due process and that the award was arbitrary and excessive. The court, however, found that Speedway received due process, the DCA's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and the monetary award was not a disproportionate penalty but merely compensated the Hannons for expenses incurred in hiring a second contractor. Consequently, the court denied Speedway's petition and dismissed the proceeding.

CPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewConsumer ProtectionHome Improvement ContractBreach of ContractDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceMonetary DamagesAgency DiscretionContract Abandonment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crane v. Shulkin

Plaintiff Dawn Crane filed an action against Defendant David J. Shulkin, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, alleging violations of Title VII (gender discrimination) and the ADEA (age discrimination). Plaintiff claimed two adverse employment actions: her inability to compete for a GS-9 position awarded to a younger male, John Fiero, and a lateral transfer to Human Resources that hindered her career advancement. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that the plaintiff failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies for both claims. Furthermore, the court found that even if the claims were exhausted, the defendant provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Fiero's promotion and the plaintiff's transfer, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that these reasons were pretextual. Consequently, all of the plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADEASummary JudgmentExhaustion of RemediesAdministrative RemediesPrima Facie CasePretextGender DiscriminationAge Discrimination
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Raggie

Severius Raggie, a debtor, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in January 2006, which was subsequently dismissed in February 2006 due to his failure to comply with credit counseling requirements and other obligations. In January 2008, Raggie moved to amend his Schedule B and Statement of Financial Affairs to include a personal injury claim against CVP # 1, LLC et al. This motion was prompted by the defendants' attempt in state court to dismiss the personal injury action because it was not listed in Raggie's bankruptcy petition. The court addressed the core issue of whether a dismissed bankruptcy case, as opposed to a closed one, precludes a debtor's right to amend schedules under Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a). The court concluded that 'closed' under § 350 and Rule 1009 does not encompass 'dismissed,' thereby maintaining Raggie's right to amend. Finding no evidence of bad faith, fraud, or prejudice to creditors, the court granted Raggie's motion to amend his schedules, rendering the motion to vacate the dismissal order moot.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Schedule B AmendmentDismissed CaseClosed Case DistinctionPersonal Injury ClaimDebtor's RightsFederal Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedureBad FaithCreditor Prejudice
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1993

O'Brien v. Ashley

This personal injury case involves an appeal concerning employees of the New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law §29 (6), contending that plaintiff Palmira L. O’Brien was a special employee of the State. The Supreme Court in Albany County denied this motion, finding that the defendants failed to demonstrate Palmira L. O’Brien's status as a special employee and that other factual issues remained. The Appellate Court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, agreeing that the motion for summary judgment was correctly denied.

personal injurysummary judgmentworkers' compensation exclusivityspecial employee doctrineemployer liabilityappellate reviewNew York Statefactual disputemotion denial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cazales v. Lecon, Inc.

Rogelio Cazales was fatally electrocuted at the Houston National Veteran’s Administration Cemetery while excavating for a water line. His family (the Cazaleses) and Le-con, Inc., the general contractor, filed a wrongful death and survival action and a third-party claim, respectively, against the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA moved for summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), specifically invoking the discretionary function exception. The court granted the VA's motion, ruling that the VA's decisions regarding the contractual delegation of worker safety responsibility to Lecon, and its limited safety inspections, were discretionary functions grounded in public policy and thus protected from suit under the FTCA, regardless of alleged negligence.

Summary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityFederal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionGovernment Contractor LiabilityWorkplace AccidentWrongful Death ClaimGovernment Agency ResponsibilityFederal JurisdictionTort Claim
References
78
Showing 1-10 of 96 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