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

Lamb v. Town of Esopus

Petitioner, employed as a building department aide since 2001, challenged respondent's decision to eliminate her full-time position in January 2005, replacing it with two part-time roles, which respondent claimed was for economy and efficiency. She initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement, back pay, and benefits, but the Supreme Court dismissed her application. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate continuous employment in a noncompetitive class for five years, which would grant Civil Service Law protection, and did not prove that the elimination of her position was motivated by bad faith or subterfuge. Furthermore, the court concluded that the respondent adhered to the doctrine of legislative equivalency, as the position was created and abolished by the same legislative means.

CPLR article 78Civil Service LawPublic employmentPosition eliminationReinstatementEconomy and efficiencyLegislative equivalency doctrineBad faithAppellate reviewGovernment restructuring
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2001

Markow-Brown v. Board of Education

The petitioner, a former full-time Social Worker whose position was eliminated in 1995, sought appointment to two half-time positions (Social Worker and Civil Service Drug and Alcohol Counselor II) after declining a previous offer, arguing they collectively equated to her former full-time role. The positions in question were ultimately filled by respondent William Polchinski. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, referring the matter to the Commissioner of Education to determine if the positions were similar. This dismissal was subsequently affirmed on appeal, with the court citing the Commissioner's specialized expertise in resolving such factual issues under Education Law § 3013 (3) (a).

Primary JurisdictionCPLR Article 78Education LawPublic SchoolsSocial WorkerCivil ServiceEmployment LawAdministrative LawSuffolk CountyJob Appointment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2002

Shambo v. Orkin Pest Control

A claimant, who sustained a back injury in 1999, was initially placed in a light-duty clerical position but was laid off in October 2000. Subsequently, she enrolled in a full-time vocational retraining program. In April 2001, her former employer offered a new full-time office position with an inflexible schedule, which the claimant declined, citing its conflict with her ongoing retraining. The employer sought to suspend her workers' compensation benefits, alleging voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. However, both a Worker’s Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her refusal was justified as the job did not accommodate her vocational rehabilitation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Labor Market WithdrawalVocational RehabilitationLight Duty EmploymentJob Offer RefusalPermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionRetraining ProgramGood Cause for RefusalSubstantial Evidence
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Plaintiff James Brewer sued his former employer, Sears, Roebuck & Company, alleging disability and age discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Brewer suffered a back injury, and upon his return to work, Sears offered him a 'full-time flex' position due to decreased service calls, which he declined, opting for a lay-off and severance. He later applied for another technician position but lost interest when he learned it was also full-time flex and paid less. Sears filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court found that Brewer failed to establish a prima facie case for either ADA or ADEA claims, concluding he was not disabled under the ADA and lacked evidence of age discrimination.

ADAADEADisability DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseEmployment LawWorkers' CompensationHerniated Lumbar DiskPerceived Disability
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beebe v. New York Times Co.

Plaintiffs Brian Beebe and Bruce Erdreich, former delivery foremen for the New York Times Company, alleged age discrimination under New York and New Jersey Human Rights Laws after being denied promotion and subsequently demoted to journeyman. The New York Times Company moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiffs never applied for the disputed positions and that Erdreich had waived his claims through prior agreements. The court dismissed Erdreich's New Jersey Law Against Discrimination claim by consent and ruled that his previous release agreements did not preclude his age discrimination claims. However, the court granted summary judgment in favor of The New York Times Company, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination due to their failure to apply for the positions they claimed were wrongfully denied, despite a sufficiently descriptive job posting.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary Judgment GrantedFailure to PromoteRelease Agreement EnforceabilityPrima Facie Discrimination CaseNew York Human Rights LawNew Jersey Law Against DiscriminationChoice of LawSpecific Application Rule
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 1994

In re the Claim of Bates

The claimant appealed a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The claimant was employed as a food service worker and informed the employer he would be returning to school and could only work part-time. It was agreed that the claimant would be replaced as the job was a full-time position. Although the claimant left employment, he did not enter school and was consequently available for full-time employment. The court found that these facts supported the Board’s decision that the claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary SeparationGood CausePart-time EmploymentFull-time EmploymentSchool EnrollmentBenefit DisqualificationAppeal Board DecisionAffirmed DecisionWork Availability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bailey v. Village of Pittsford

Edward Bailey, a former full-time Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer for the Village of Pittsford, sued his former employer alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation. Bailey's full-time position was eliminated due to budget cuts, and he accepted a newly created part-time role. He contended that the change was discriminatory and that he was denied a pre-termination hearing. The court granted the Village's motion for summary judgment, finding that Bailey failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and could not rebut the Village's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (budgetary concerns). Additionally, his due process claim was dismissed because he did not request a pre-termination hearing.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentDue ProcessCivil Service LawBudget CutsReduction in ForcePretextADEAFourteenth Amendment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between County of Sullivan & Teamsters Local 445

The case concerns an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment that granted Sullivan County's (petitioner) application to vacate an arbitration award. The dispute arose after the County unilaterally reduced home health aide positions from full-time to part-time, leading the Civil Service Employees Association (respondent) to file a grievance and subsequently demand arbitration. Initially, an arbitrator ordered the aides restored to full-time status with back pay, finding violations of the collective bargaining agreement. However, the Supreme Court vacated this award, determining the arbitrator's application of a specific agreement section (408) was irrational as it applied only to 40-hour work weeks, not the aides' 35-hour week. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the collective bargaining agreement did not prohibit the County's reduction of hours due to business necessity.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceWork Hours ReductionJudicial ReviewVacating AwardAffirmed JudgmentPublic Sector EmploymentLabor DisputeManagement Rights
References
2
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 03103 [138 AD3d 598]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

Bennett v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Plaintiffs, who were general foremen in their 50s and 60s, brought claims against Time Warner Cable Inc., alleging age-based discrimination under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws based on a disparate impact theory. They contended that the defendant's decision to eliminate the general foreman position disproportionately affected them compared to younger workers. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the defendant's motion to dismiss these claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, reaffirming that disparate impact claims for age discrimination are cognizable under both the State and City Human Rights Laws, and noting the requirement to construe the City Human Rights Law broadly in favor of plaintiffs.

Age DiscriminationDisparate ImpactHuman Rights LawMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentState LawCity LawEmployment Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 5,565 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