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

Moore v. Potter

Darcy Moore, a former supervisor at the United States Postal Service (USPS), filed a lawsuit against the Postmaster General of the USPS under Title VII and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). A trial on the Title VII claims resulted in a verdict for the defendants. The court then considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding Moore's FMLA claim, which alleged interference with FMLA benefits and retaliation. Moore claimed he was improperly charged as absent without leave instead of being granted FMLA leave and faced disciplinary action. The court found that Moore failed to follow the proper procedures for requesting leave, leading to the dismissal of his FMLA interference claim. Additionally, the court found no evidence to support a causal connection between Moore seeking FMLA leave and any adverse employment actions, thereby granting summary judgment and dismissing the FMLA retaliation claim and the entire complaint.

FMLATitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment LawRetaliationInterference with BenefitsAbsent Without LeaveFederal Civil ProcedurePro Se LitigationUSPS
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eckert v. Schroeder, Joseph & Associates

Plaintiff Timothy Eckert, proceeding pro se, filed an action alleging anti-retaliation violations under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and breaches of New York State Attorney Disciplinary Rules. He sued several lawyers, law firms, and union representatives associated with his former employer, arguing they qualified as 'employers' under the FMLA and retaliated against him by making misrepresentations in a related FMLA case. The court granted Eckert's request to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the FMLA claims, finding that attorneys and union representatives are not 'employers' as defined by the FMLA. Furthermore, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law disciplinary claims.

FMLAAnti-retaliationPro Se LitigationSubject Matter JurisdictionIn Forma PauperisAttorney Disciplinary RulesNew York LawDefinition of EmployerSupplemental JurisdictionComplaint Dismissal
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Di Giovanna v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Joseph Di Giovanna, a former director at Beth Israel Medical Center (BIMC), sued BIMC and Continuum Health Partners, Inc. for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). He alleged interference with his FMLA rights by being discouraged from taking leave to care for his father and unlawful retaliation through termination for exercising those rights. Defendants sought summary judgment, asserting Di Giovanna was fired for documented poor performance, not FMLA use. The court, presided over by District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, granted the defendants' motion. It found no admissible evidence of FMLA interference and concluded that Di Giovanna failed to prove his termination was motivated by his exercise of FMLA rights, despite assuming a prima facie case for retaliation.

FMLARetaliationInterferenceSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDiscriminationFamily LeavePerformance ReviewHuman ResourcesFederal Court
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

FLOTO v. Manhattan Woods Golf Enterprises, LLC

Plaintiff was fired from Manhattan Woods Golf Club after taking a day off for his dying mother's emergency brain surgery. He sued for FMLA violation and breach of contract. A jury awarded him damages for both claims. Defendants subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that he qualified for FMLA leave. The court granted the defendants' motion regarding the FMLA claim (Count I), finding insufficient evidence that the plaintiff was 'needed to care for' his mother as per FMLA regulations, and dismissed the claim. The motion for reduction of FMLA damages became moot. However, the court denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract claim (Count II), upholding the jury's finding that the employer lacked 'reasonable cause' to terminate the plaintiff's employment.

FMLABreach of ContractJudgment as a Matter of LawEmployment LawEmployee TerminationFamily and Medical LeavePsychological CareDamagesPost-trial MotionsRule 50
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slaughter v. American Building Maintenance Co.

Ellis L. Slaughter, a former employee of American Building Maintenance Co. of New York (ABM), moved for partial summary judgment on his Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claim and to dismiss ABM's affirmative defense of collateral estoppel. Slaughter was terminated by ABM due to excessive absences under a 'no fault' policy, stemming from recurring back pain, a condition known to ABM's predecessor. The court found that Slaughter's notice to ABM regarding his FMLA-qualifying leave was insufficient for summary judgment in his favor, as merely calling in sick did not adequately inform ABM of his FMLA-protected condition, and doctors' notes were provided with delay. However, the court granted Slaughter's motion to dismiss ABM's collateral estoppel defense, ruling that a prior arbitration decision, which upheld his termination for excessive absenteeism, did not preclude his federal statutory FMLA claim because the issues resolved were distinct and the arbitrator did not consider FMLA specifics. The motion for summary judgment was thus granted in part and denied in part.

FMLASummary Judgment MotionCollateral EstoppelAbsenteeism PolicyTermination of EmploymentBack InjuryMedical Leave NoticeLabor LawEmployee RightsPreclusive Effect of Arbitration
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2004

Pierce v. HSBC Mortgage Corp.

The plaintiff, a mortgage loan officer, alleged that the defendants violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by terminating his employment while on FMLA leave and denying him approximately $400,000 in commissions. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendants' cross-motion, finding that commissions are not considered "employment benefits" under FMLA. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, as the defendants had decided to terminate his employment before he requested FMLA leave. Even if a prima facie case was made, legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination, such as customer complaints and unprofessional conduct, were provided by the defendants.

FMLARetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment BenefitsCommissionsBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitCausal ConnectionLegitimate Nondiscriminatory ReasonsPretextual Reasons
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Geromanos v. Columbia University

Plaintiff Kimberly L. Geromanos sued Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, alleging interference with her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Geromanos was terminated from her research nurse position while on FMLA leave for alcohol rehabilitation. Columbia's motion for summary judgment argued that she failed to comply with leave conditions, including submitting weekly progress reports and refraining from outside employment. The court granted summary judgment for Columbia, finding Geromanos received her full FMLA leave entitlement and was not entitled to reinstatement due to her inability to perform essential job functions and non-compliance with treatment terms. The decision concluded that Columbia did not interfere with her FMLA rights, nor was there evidence of retaliatory intent.

FMLASummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationAlcohol AddictionMedical Leave ConditionsInterference with FMLA RightsRehabilitation ComplianceReinstatement DenialEmployee MisconductDisability Benefits
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2009

Meggison v. Paychex, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael T. Meggison sued Defendant Paychex, Incorporated, alleging Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) violations, including retaliation. Meggison, an employee since 2003, had a history of disciplinary issues regarding his conduct with co-workers. In April 2007, he took FMLA leave for tumors. Despite returning, disciplinary actions continued, culminating in his termination in September 2007 after reported threats against a co-worker. Meggison claimed Paychex failed to provide sufficient FMLA notice and retaliated against him. The court granted Paychex's motion for summary judgment, finding that Meggison received adequate FMLA notice and failed to prove retaliation, as Paychex presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination based on his conduct.

FMLA RetaliationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee MisconductDisciplinary ActionMedical LeaveNotice RequirementsMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkTemporal Proximity
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Atria Senior Living Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Ernest Rodriguez sued his former employer Atria Senior Living Group under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Rodriguez moved for partial summary judgment on one ADA reasonable accommodation claim, one ADA retaliation claim, and six FMLA interference claims. The Court denied Rodriguez's motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety. The Court granted summary judgment to Atria on the ADA reasonable accommodation claim, the ADA retaliation claim, and four of the FMLA claims, finding no genuine disputes of material fact. However, for two FMLA claims concerning health insurance premiums and concurrent workers' compensation leave, the Court denied summary judgment to both parties due to unresolved factual disputes.

ADA accommodationADA retaliationFMLA interferenceSummary judgmentMedical leaveDisability discrimination100% healed policyHealth insurance premiumsWorkers' compensationEmployee benefits
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. New York State Nurses Ass'n

Plaintiff Harriet Cooper sued her former employer NYSNA and supervisors Lorraine Seidel and Susanne Calvello, alleging termination in retaliation for taking FMLA leave and asserting retaliatory discharge and hostile work environment claims under NYHRL. Both parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The court granted defendants' motion in part, dismissing plaintiff's NYHRL and common-law wrongful discharge claims, as well as her FMLA claims for emotional distress and punitive damages. However, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the core FMLA retaliation claim, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to consider, including temporal proximity and potential retaliatory animus. Plaintiff's own motion for summary judgment was entirely denied, indicating the case will proceed to trial on the remaining FMLA retaliation claim for monetary losses.

FMLA RetaliationFamily and Medical Leave ActRetaliatory DischargeHostile Work EnvironmentNew York State Human Rights Law (NYHRL)Summary JudgmentAt-will EmploymentEmployee TerminationMedical LeavePerformance Issues
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 62 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