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
Oct 09, 2001

Honey v. County of Rockland

Plaintiff Alice Honey, a Radio Operator for Rockland County, initiated an action against her employer for alleged retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The retaliation claims stemmed from a disability discrimination complaint Honey filed with the EEOC in April 1996, after which she claimed adverse employment actions, including prohibited shift swaps and harassment. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment. While several of Honey's claims of adverse employment action were dismissed, the court found a genuine issue of material fact concerning the prohibition of shift swaps, linking it to the EEOC complaint. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

ADA retaliationdisability discriminationemployment lawsummary judgmentadverse employment actionshift swapEEOC complaintcausal connectionprima facie caseRockland County
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tainsky v. Clarins USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Harriet Tainsky filed a lawsuit against her employer Clarins USA, Inc. and her supervisor Cathy Lawrence, alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII, and negligent supervision against Clarins. Tainsky claimed Lawrence subjected her to unwanted physical contact, verbal sexual comments, and retaliated against her after she complained. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no sexual harassment occurred and Tainsky was fired for poor performance. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the sexual harassment and retaliation claims against Clarins, thus denying summary judgment in part. However, the Title VII claims against Lawrence individually were dismissed, as Title VII applies only to employers. The negligent supervision claim against Clarins also remains for trial, specifically regarding events after Clarins had notice of Lawrence's alleged misbehavior.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINegligent SupervisionEmployment DiscriminationSame-Sex HarassmentFederal CourtDistrict Court
References
17
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. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Philpott v. New York

Plaintiff Jeffery Philpott, a former Vice President at SUNY’s College of Optometry, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit alleging sexual orientation discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Initially, the State of New York and the University of the State of New York were named as defendants but were later dismissed, as was a claim under the ADA, leaving only State University of New York (SUNY) as a defendant. The court evaluated whether sexual orientation discrimination is cognizable under Title VII, finding that it is due to the evolving legal landscape and recent circuit court decisions. It concluded that plaintiff plausibly alleged his claims and that they were not time-barred. However, the court dismissed the Title IX claim, determining that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination in federally funded educational institutions. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIITitle IXMotion to DismissGender StereotypingStatute of LimitationsEmployment DiscriminationFederal Court
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2015

Doe v. Hagenbeck

Plaintiff Jane Doe, a former cadet, sued West Point officials and the U.S. for alleged sexual hostility and discrimination at the academy, which she claims forced her to resign. She alleged violations of her Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection rights, as well as breach of contract and Federal Tort Claims Act claims. The court, presided over by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. While dismissing Doe's due process, FTCA, and contract claims, and dismissing the U.S. from the case, the court allowed her equal protection claim against the individual defendants, Hagenbeck and Rapp, to proceed. The court reasoned that Doe sufficiently alleged rampant gender discrimination at West Point, which violated her constitutional right to equal protection, and that the Feres doctrine did not bar this specific claim.

Gender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentEqual ProtectionDue ProcessWest PointMilitary AcademyMotion to DismissBivens ClaimFederal Tort Claims ActLittle Tucker Act
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hargett v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

David T. Hargett sued the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), its executives (Stanley Grill, David Ross, May Mcintosh), the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), and its employees (Ken Neal, James Harding, Jr.) for wrongful discharge based on civil rights violations, age discrimination, New York State Human Rights Law, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and breach of contract. Hargett, an African American male, was terminated from NYCTA in June 2004 after a female subordinate accused him of sending inappropriate emails, an accusation she later recanted claiming she was pressured by NYCTA management. The court, presided by Judge McMahon, granted in part and denied in part the NYCTA Defendants' motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing IIED, defamation, and breach of contract claims as time-barred or lacking legal merit. The MTA Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims was granted, as the MTA was not considered Hargett's employer and individual liability requirements were not met. The NYCTA Defendants' motion to strike certain paragraphs from the complaint was denied.

Wrongful TerminationAge Discrimination in Employment ActCivil Rights ViolationRacial DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamation LawsuitBreach of Employment ContractMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsEmployment Discrimination
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2008

Siddiqi v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Khursheed Siddiqi, a medical technologist, sued New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation (HHC) alleging discrimination based on race, age, religion, and national origin. Claims included violations of federal and state laws for involuntary transfer, denial of promotion, refusal of religious holidays, negative performance evaluations, and a hostile work environment. The court granted HHC's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. Age discrimination and several time-barred federal claims were dismissed. The court allowed a claim for religious discrimination regarding unequal holiday leave and a hostile work environment claim to proceed, but dismissed retaliation claims for failure to promote and performance evaluations.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPerformance EvaluationsFailure to PromoteStatute of Limitations
References
41
Case No. 06-cv-05285
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2014

Muszkatel v. 90 Church Street Ltd. Partnership

Jerzy Muszkatel, an asbestos abatement worker, sued multiple defendants (owners, environmental consultants, contractors, subcontractors) for common law negligence and violations of New York Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), alleging injuries from working in buildings near the World Trade Center post-9/11 due to inadequate safety equipment and procedures for "alkaline-based" dust. The District Court, presided by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, denied in part and granted in part the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The court found triable issues of fact regarding supervisory control and premises liability under Labor Law 200 for most defendants across multiple sites (2 World Financial Center, 90 Church Street, 140 West Street). It also sustained Section 241(6) claims for these sites concerning specific Industrial Code violations (23-1.5(c)(3), 23-1.7(h), 1.8(c)(4), 23-1.8(b)(l)), but dismissed claims for work at 101 Barclay Street and 7 Dey Street due to lack of "construction, excavation or demolition" activity, and dismissed all claims against Indoor Environmental Technologies, Inc.

asbestos abatementWorld Trade Center9/11 clean-upsummary judgmentNew York Labor Lawnegligenceindustrial code violationsoccupational hazardspersonal protective equipmentsite safety
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Okeke v. New York & Presbyterian Hospital

Plaintiffs Ifeanyichukwu E. Okeke, Jerry Baglione, Iqbal Bajwa, Adel Mahmoud, Naeem U. Qureshi, and Abel De La Trinidad sued The New York and Presbyterian Hospital for age discrimination and hostile work environment under federal, state, and city laws. A jury found the Hospital liable on NYCHRL claims for age-related termination, denial of training, and hostile work environment, but not under federal and state law. The Hospital moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur. The Court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law, granted in part and denied in part the motion for a new trial (specifically granting a new trial on the NYCHRL termination claims), and denied the motion for remittitur as moot. The hostile work environment claim under NYCHRL was sustained.

Age DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentNYCHRLADEAMixed-Motive DiscriminationJury VerdictRule 50 MotionRule 59 MotionRemittiturDenial of Training
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 1,883 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