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
Jul 10, 2013

Villegas v. Albertsons, LLC

Plaintiff Arturo Villegas, an employee at Albertsons, brought claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for interference and retaliation, and a defamation claim against Albertsons, LLC and his supervisor, Antonio Labrado. Villegas alleged FMLA interference due to schedule adjustments instead of FMLA leave for his daughter's medical appointments and Mr. Labrado discouraging leave. He also claimed retaliation after his termination for alleged theft and defamation by Mr. Labrado. The Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants, finding no prejudice for the FMLA interference claim as Villegas attended all appointments and received his normal paycheck. The FMLA retaliation claim failed due to lack of a prima facie case and no proof of pretext. The defamation claim also failed as no defamatory statement was made by Mr. Labrado, and even if it had, it would be qualifiedly privileged.

FMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationDefamationSummary JudgmentWorkplace TheftSupervisor LiabilityNotice RequirementsQualified PrivilegeMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkEmployment Law
References
34
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

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

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, 2008

Miles-Hickman v. David Powers Homes, Inc.

Plaintiff Pamela Miles-Hickman sued her former employer, David Powers Homes, Inc., alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation under ADA, TCHRA, FMLA, and ERISA, interference with FMLA and ERISA rights, and COBRA violations. The court granted summary judgment to the Defendant on the disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and ERISA claims. While finding a COBRA notice violation by the Defendant, the court denied Plaintiff's requests for COBRA penalties and medical expense recovery due to lack of bad faith and prejudice. However, the court denied summary judgment for the Defendant on the ADA/TCHRA retaliatory discharge, FMLA interference, and FMLA retaliation claims, allowing these specific claims to proceed to trial.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationFMLAERISACOBRASummary JudgmentEmployment LawWorkplace AccommodationAttendance PolicySerious Health Condition
References
127
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Esser v. Rainbow Advertising Sales Corp.

Plaintiff Peter Esser sued Rainbow Advertising Sales Corp. (RASCO) for FMLA interference and retaliation. Esser took medical leave for carpal tunnel surgery, during which he attended an Elton John concert and allegedly misused his employee ID to access restricted areas. RASCO terminated Esser, citing breach of security and lack of candor during questioning. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the interference claim, finding Esser was granted FMLA leave, but denied it on the retaliation claim. The court determined there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether RASCO exhibited animus towards Esser for taking FMLA leave and whether it deviated from its termination policy.

FMLAFamily Medical Leave ActRetaliationInterferenceSummary JudgmentEmployee MisconductTerminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeWorkplace PolicyDue Process
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reilly v. Revlon, Inc.

Plaintiff Lisa Reilly filed this action against Revlon, Inc. and two employees, alleging employment discrimination and wrongful termination under the ADA, PDA, FMLA, and New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Reilly's claims stemmed from issues related to her pregnancy and subsequent postpartum depression, including allegations of FMLA interference and retaliation, and disability discrimination. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the FMLA and PDA claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding interference, retaliation, or pregnancy discrimination. However, the court denied summary judgment on Reilly's ADA and analogous state and city law disability discrimination claims, determining that there were triable issues regarding her disability status and the reasonableness of the requested part-time work accommodation.

Employment DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentAmericans with Disabilities ActFamily Medical Leave ActPregnancy Discrimination ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawPostpartum DepressionReasonable Accommodation
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colon v. Fashion Institute of Technology

This case involves plaintiffs Genette Colon and Elvimar Rivas, who sued their former employer, the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), and several individual defendants, alleging racial and pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA violations. Colon brought claims for FMLA interference and retaliation, and discriminatory treatment and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Rivas filed claims for pregnancy discrimination, discriminatory discharge, and hostile work environment under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court, presided over by Judge Harold Baer, Jr., granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court denied summary judgment on Colon's FMLA interference and retaliation claims and Rivas's NYCHRL pregnancy discrimination and discharge claims, finding material issues of fact. However, summary judgment was granted for defendants on Colon's § 1981 discriminatory treatment and retaliation claims, and Rivas's § 1981 and NYCHRL hostile work environment claims, concluding these claims lacked sufficient evidence of adverse action or discriminatory intent.

Race DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationFMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentWrongful TerminationEmployment Law42 U.S.C. 1981NYCHRL
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Payne v. Goodman Manufacturing Co.

Plaintiff Connie Payne filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P., alleging claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for interference and retaliation, violations of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) for maternity leave, pregnancy discrimination, and retaliation, and claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's FMLA interference and retaliation claims, allowing them to proceed to trial, citing sufficient evidence of a causal connection due to temporal proximity between the FMLA request and termination. However, the court granted summary judgment on all THRA claims (pregnancy discrimination, maternity leave, and retaliation) and the EPA claim, dismissing them with prejudice. The THRA pregnancy discrimination claim failed due to a lack of direct evidence and insufficient temporal proximity. The THRA maternity leave and retaliation claims were also dismissed as they were analyzed under similar standards as the failed THRA discrimination claims. The EPA claim was dismissed because the plaintiff could not establish "equal work" compared to male co-workers, as they possessed more technical certifications and skills.

FMLATHRAEqual Pay ActPregnancy DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDiscriminationWorkplace RightsWage Disparity
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Sharp Electronics Corp.

Latayina Jones sued Sharp Electronics Corporation, alleging interference with her Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights, retaliation for exercising FMLA rights, and disability discrimination under the Tennessee Disability Act. Sharp moved for summary judgment on all claims. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granted summary judgment to Sharp on both FMLA claims, finding Jones was not an eligible employee under the FMLA as she did not work the requisite hours. The court also rejected Jones's equitable estoppel argument and found she had exhausted her FMLA leave. Regarding the FMLA retaliation claim, the court again cited ineligibility and, alternatively, found Sharp provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination (inability to return to work) which Jones failed to rebut as pretextual. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Tennessee Disability Act claim and remanded it to the state circuit court.

FMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelEligible EmployeeHours of ServiceRolling Twelve-Month PeriodTennessee Disability ActSupplemental JurisdictionRemand
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 528 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