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
Apr 17, 2014

Vangas v. Montefiore Medical Center

Plaintiffs Mirelle and Alfredo Vangas sued Montefiore Medical Center (MMC), Elizabeth Burns, and Patricia Quinn. Plaintiffs alleged MMC violated COBRA by failing to send proper notification, and Mrs. Vangas claimed disability discrimination under NYSHRL and NYCHRL for failure to accommodate and NYLL violation for not timely notifying her of benefit cancellation. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on the NYSHRL failure to accommodate claim but denied it for the NYCHRL failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process (NYSHRL and NYCHRL), COBRA violation, and NYLL violation claims. The core disputes revolved around whether Mrs. Vangas's requests for leave or remote work were reasonable, whether an interactive process occurred, and if the COBRA and NYLL notices were properly and timely issued.

COBRADisability AccommodationNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawNew York Labor LawSummary Judgment MotionEmployment TerminationMedical LeaveInteractive ProcessReasonable Accommodation
References
46
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02003 [159 AD3d 558]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

D'Amico v. City of New York

Plaintiff, a sanitation worker, suffered a hand injury and was terminated after requesting light duty based on doctors' recommendations. He filed claims for disability discrimination under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, alleging failure to accommodate. The Supreme Court initially dismissed his amended verified complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, reinstating plaintiff's disability discrimination claims related to failure to accommodate, highlighting the absence of an interactive dialogue for reasonable accommodation. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of his retaliation claims, finding he failed to allege protected activity.

Disability discriminationHuman Rights LawFailure to accommodateRetaliation claimsSanitation workerLight duty accommodationInteractive dialogueAppellate DivisionNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Carlotta Howard

Carlotta Howard, a Human Services Tech III for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, was terminated after a car accident led to severe injuries and medical leave. She exhausted her sick and FMLA leave and was unable to return to full-time work due to medication-induced dizziness and back spasms. Howard sued for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Texas Labor Code. The trial court denied the Department's plea to the jurisdiction. On appeal, the court affirmed in part, finding a fact issue on disability discrimination, but reversed in part, dismissing the failure to accommodate claim because driving, a 75% essential function, could not be performed with the requested part-time accommodation.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment LawTexas Labor CodePlea to JurisdictionUnlawful Employment PracticesReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsFMLAAdverse Employment Decision
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC

Plaintiff Atkins, an insulin-dependent diabetic, was terminated by Dollar General after violating the anti-grazing policy during two hypoglycemic episodes while working alone. Atkins had previously informed her supervisor about her need to keep orange juice at the register as an accommodation, but was told it was against policy and to avoid being seen. The EEOC and Atkins filed ADA claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodation and discriminatory discharge. The court denied defendant's motions to strike declarations and granted defendant's motion to depose a witness. The court denied as moot the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. It partially granted and partially denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Atkins's retaliation claim but finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the failure to accommodate and discriminatory discharge claims.

Americans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationDiscriminatory DischargeSummary JudgmentFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDiscovery MotionsEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionDiabetes Mellitus Type 2Employer Policy ViolationInteractive Process
References
84
Case No. 09-24-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2025

Texas State Technical College System v. Ted H. Donavan

Ted H. Donavan sued Texas State Technical College System (TSTC) for employment discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The trial court initially granted TSTC's motion to dismiss the retaliation claim but denied it for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. On appeal, the Court of Appeals considered whether Donavan established a prima facie case of disability discrimination and whether TSTC's reason for termination was a pretext. The court determined that TSTC presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination (sleeping on the job), which Donavan failed to prove was pretextual or that his disability was the "but-for" cause. Furthermore, Donavan failed to timely notify TSTC of his disability and suggest reasonable accommodations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of TSTC's plea to the jurisdiction and rendered judgment dismissing Donavan's claims.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationFailure to AccommodateRetaliation ClaimTexas Commission on Human Rights ActSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionMotion for Summary JudgmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPretext for Discrimination
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Price v. City of New York

Plaintiff John N. Price, proceeding pro se, sued the City of New York and the New York City Department of Correction for discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) due to alleged failure to provide reasonable accommodation. Defendants moved to dismiss both claims. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom recommended granting dismissal for the retaliation claim but denying it for the discrimination claim. The District Court adopted the recommendation to dismiss the retaliation claim. For the discrimination claim, the court found Plaintiff's EEOC Intake Questionnaire was a timely 'charge' and that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a permanent physical impairment (knees and right hand) substantially limiting major life activities (working and walking). The court also found sufficient pleading of employer notice and ability to perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodation (handicapped parking pass). Consequently, the motion to dismiss the discrimination claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodation was denied.

ADADisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationRetaliation ClaimMotion to DismissPro Se LitigantTimeliness of ChargeEEOC Intake QuestionnaireFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. City of Utica

Plaintiff John Brooks, a Nazirite firefighter-paramedic for the City of Utica, sued the City for religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. He alleged that the City failed to accommodate his religious belief of not cutting his hair, subjected him to threats of discipline, daily inspections, forced him to wear an unsafe hairnet, ridiculed his beliefs, and refused to investigate his complaints. The court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. It dismissed the disparate treatment and failure-to-accommodate claims, finding that threats and monitoring did not constitute adverse employment actions in the discrimination context, and that failure to investigate did not qualify as an adverse employment action. However, the court denied dismissal of the retaliation claim, determining that an order to cut his hair after requesting accommodation could dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity. The hostile work environment claim also survived, considering the potential safety hazard of the hairnet, along with the ongoing harassment and ridicule.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York State Human Rights LawReasonable AccommodationNazirite PracticeGrooming StandardsAdverse Employment ActionMotion for Judgment on Pleadings
References
70
Case No. 12-20-00235-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2021

Texas Health & Human Services Commission Lufkin State Supported Living Center v. Gerald Willard

Gerald Willard, an employee at the Lufkin State Supported Living Center, developed leg pain and began using a cane. After being told he couldn't work with his cane, he submitted a doctor's note and was subsequently advised to resign and reapply for a security guard position, which he did. However, he was then informed he was ineligible for the new role. Willard filed suit alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. The trial court denied the employer's plea to the jurisdiction, but the Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the discrimination claim due to sovereign immunity. The failure to accommodate claim was remanded to the trial court to allow Willard to amend his pleadings.

Disability DiscriminationFailure to AccommodateSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionConstructive DischargeTexas Labor CodeEmployment LawAppellate ReviewJurisdictional FactsProbationary Period
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quadir v. New York State Department of Labor

Plaintiff Mohammed Quadir sued the New York State Department of Labor, alleging disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable accommodations, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State and City Human Rights Laws (NYSHRL, NYCHRL). The Department moved to dismiss the complaint. The court dismissed the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. However, it allowed the claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodation, adverse employment action due to disability, and retaliation to proceed, construing them under the Rehabilitation Act. The court also denied Quadir's application for pro bono counsel without prejudice, stating it was too early to determine the merits of the case.

Disability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentMotion to DismissEmployment LawPro Se Litigant
References
55
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,854 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