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

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
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

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
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

Augustus v. AHRC Nassau

Plaintiff Susan Augustus sued her former employer, AHRC Nassau, for racial discrimination under Title VII and retaliation under FMLA. Augustus alleged stricter performance standards and termination based on race, and retaliation for advocating for a pregnant client's FMLA rights. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. While Augustus established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the court found AHRC Nassau provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination, and Augustus failed to prove pretext or discriminatory intent. The court also found no evidence of FMLA retaliation. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, ruling in favor of AHRC Nassau.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIIFMLA RetaliationAdverse Employment ActionMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextWork PerformanceCommunication Issues
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jordan v. County of Chemung

Plaintiff Edith Jordan filed a lawsuit against Chemung County and its officials alleging violations of federal and state laws, including the FMLA, Title VII, First and Fourteenth Amendments, NYSHRL, and the New York Constitution. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed Plaintiff's FMLA interference, Title VII discrimination and retaliation, Equal Protection, and most state law claims. However, Plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim concerning the elimination of her Sunday shift, opposition to unemployment benefits, and refusal to reinstate hours, along with her First Amendment retaliation claim regarding the cessation of call-in shifts, survived summary judgment.

FMLA RetaliationSummary JudgmentGender DiscriminationFirst Amendment RetaliationDue ProcessNYSHRLNew York ConstitutionPublic EmployeeAdverse Employment ActionPretext
References
95
Case No. 15-CV-1136
Regular Panel Decision

Skates v. Incorporated Village of Freeport

Plaintiff Earline Skates sued the Incorporated Village of Freeport for racial discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, FMLA retaliation, ADA discrimination, First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and NYSHRL violations. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection for her First Amendment retaliation claim and did not show that the defendant's reasons for her termination (insubordination, absences, and discriminatory statements) were pretextual for FMLA retaliation.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIFMLA RetaliationADA DiscriminationFirst Amendment RetaliationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment
References
71
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 1,535 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