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

Stouter v. Smithtown Central School District

Maura Olga Stouter, a Caucasian, 59-year-old lesbian woman, was employed by Smithtown Central School District as a physical education teacher and volleyball coach. After retiring as a teacher in 2003, she continued coaching. In 2006, she was not reappointed as varsity girls volleyball coach, which she alleges was due to discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, age, and retaliation for her Title IX compliance concerns. The court granted summary judgment to Smithtown on claims including Title VII sexual orientation discrimination, gender discrimination (disparate treatment) under Title VII and NYHRL, age discrimination under ADEA and NYHRL, ADEA retaliation, and Title IX gender discrimination. However, the court denied summary judgment on claims for hostile work environment (gender), sexual orientation discrimination (NYHRL), and retaliation (Title VII, Title IX, NYHRL), which will proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexual Orientation DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIADEATitle IXNew York Human Rights Law
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennett v. Hofstra University

The plaintiff, Tyrone Bennett, sued his former employer, Hofstra University, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York Human Rights Law after his termination in May 2009. Bennett claimed he was fired based on his gender and for complaining about discrimination. Hofstra moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted. The Court found Bennett failed to establish a prima facie case for gender discrimination due to a lack of evidence of disparate treatment compared to similarly situated female co-workers. Furthermore, his retaliation claim failed because his complaints were not related to statutorily prohibited discrimination, and Hofstra was not aware of any protected activity concerning gender discrimination.

Gender DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment LawNew York Human Rights LawPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentProtected ActivityFederal Civil Procedure
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grand Union Co. v. Mercado

Martha Mailloux, a female frozen food selector, filed an age and gender discrimination charge against her employer (petitioner) with the State Division of Human Rights (DHR) in 1991, alleging verbal and physical harassment by co-workers. This culminated in a physical assault in October 1990, leading her to cease working due to injuries. DHR found the employer guilty of discrimination and ordered back pay and damages. The employer initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding for judicial review, arguing prompt remedial action and that workers' compensation benefits precluded the discrimination claim. The Court found substantial evidence supporting DHR's determination that the employer condoned the hostile work environment through inaction and rejected the workers' compensation preclusion argument. Consequently, DHR's determination was confirmed, and the employer's petition was dismissed.

Gender DiscriminationAge DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentEmployer CondonationWorkplace HarassmentAdministrative ReviewWorkers' Compensation OffsetExecutive Law ProceedingHuman Rights LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2016

Carpenter v. City of Mount Vernon

Plaintiff Jennifer Carpenter, a female African-American Sergeant in the Mount Vernon Police Department, sued the City of Mount Vernon and several individuals, alleging gender discrimination, retaliation, and disability discrimination under various federal and state laws. She claimed mistreatment and disparate treatment based on her gender and opposition to discriminatory practices, including denial of training, being ordered out of headquarters, and denial of benefits. Defendants moved to dismiss her Second Amended Complaint. The Court granted the motion in part, dismissing the gender discrimination claims due to insufficient pleading of an adverse employment action. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the retaliation and disability discrimination claims, finding the retaliation claims were not adequately challenged by defendants and the disability discrimination claim was properly based on denial of light-duty accommodation.

Gender DiscriminationRetaliationDisability DiscriminationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawAmericans with Disabilities ActMotion to DismissAdverse Employment ActionHostile Work EnvironmentMunicipal Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Day v. KRYSTAL COMPANY

Plaintiff Kristen Madison Day filed a lawsuit against Krystal Company, alleging gender discrimination, failure to promote, gender-based hostile work environment, and wage discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted on all claims. The Court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, or failure to promote. For the wage discrimination claims, the Court determined the defendant provided sufficient evidence that wage disparities were based on factors other than sex, such as experience and job responsibilities. Consequently, all of the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Gender DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActEqual Pay ActHostile Work EnvironmentFailure to PromoteWage DiscriminationEmployment LawFederal Civil ProcedureEmployee Benefits Manager
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Lora Abbott Seabury, an employee at a correctional facility, filed a complaint in 2010 alleging sexual harassment by male coworkers, creating a hostile work environment. An Administrative Law Judge found in her favor, recommending substantial economic and non-economic damages. The Commissioner of Human Rights adjusted the economic damages but adopted the recommendations. The correctional facility (petitioner) sought to annul the determination, while Seabury sought modification and confirmation. The Court upheld the finding of a hostile work environment due to gender-based harassment, crediting Seabury's testimony about daily harassment, supervisors' inaction, and gender-biased statements. The Court also affirmed the $300,000 award for noneconomic injuries, finding it supported by evidence of severe psychological trauma, including PTSD and major depressive disorder. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Seabury's award should not be offset by workers' compensation benefits and that pension losses must be compensated, remitting the matter to determine those damages.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentGender DiscriminationAdministrative ReviewDamages AwardEconomic DamagesNoneconomic DamagesWorkers' Compensation OffsetPension BenefitsDuty to Mitigate
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2014

Eure v. Sage Corp.

Loretta Eure, a transgender truck-driving instructor, sued The Sage Corporation for gender discrimination under Title VII and the TCHRA, wrongful termination, retaliation, and negligent hiring/supervision. Eure alleged discrimination based on her transgender status and a reduction in hours after reporting incidents to management. The court granted Sage's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. The court ruled that discrimination based solely on transgender status is not per se gender stereotyping actionable under Title VII as interpreted by the Fifth Circuit, and Eure failed to provide evidence of discrimination based on a failure to conform to gender stereotypes. Additionally, the retaliation claim failed due to a lack of causal link between protected activity and adverse action, and negligence claims were preempted by the TCHRA and lacked an independently actionable tort.

Gender DiscriminationTitle VIITexas Commission on Human Rights ActRetaliationSummary JudgmentTransgender RightsEmployment LawNegligent HiringHostile Work EnvironmentFifth Circuit
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Butler v. New York Health & Racquet Club

Plaintiff Sonia Elaine Butler, a former fitness instructor, brought an action against the New York Health & Racquet Club (NYHRC) and her supervisor, Maryann Donner, alleging age, race, and gender discrimination, as well as retaliation under various federal, state, and city human rights laws. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion regarding Butler's claims of age, race, and gender discrimination under Title VII, ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, citing a lack of sufficient evidence or an inference of discrimination. However, the motion for summary judgment was denied concerning Butler's gender discrimination claim under the Equal Pay Act and her retaliation claims under Title VII and NYSHRL, as triable issues of material fact were found to exist. A telephone conference is scheduled for February 4, 2011, to discuss further proceedings.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationEqual Pay ActSummary JudgmentTitle VIIADEANYSHRL
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moling v. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc.

Rhonda Moling sued O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Moling alleged a hostile work environment due to inappropriate comments and advances from a regional auditor, Robert Stonehouse, and teasing from a store manager, Carl Ouellette. She also claimed gender discrimination and retaliation, citing her transfer and demotion to a parts specialist role after her complaints. The court found no direct evidence for gender discrimination and concluded that the alleged harassment did not meet the 'severe or pervasive' standard for a hostile work environment. Furthermore, her retaliation claim was dismissed, as the court viewed her transfer as an accommodation, not an adverse action. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Sexual HarassmentGender DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment LawQuid Pro Quo HarassmentBurden of Proof
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2008

Krikelis v. Vassar College

Plaintiff Arlene Krikelis sued Vassar College and Aramark Campus Services, alleging sex and disability discrimination and retaliation in her employment. Her claims included disability discrimination related to her diabetes, gender-based pay discrimination as a cook, a hostile work environment due to a coworker's harassment, and retaliation for her complaints. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the disability discrimination claims, ruling her diabetes was not a substantially limiting disability under the ADA or NYHRL. However, the court denied summary judgment on the gender-based pay discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims, finding that sufficient factual disputes warranted trial.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionWorkplace Harassment
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 2,398 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