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

Davis v. State of New York Department of Corrections

Plaintiff Melvin Davis, an African-American correction officer at Fishkill Correctional Facility, sued his employer DOCCS and coworkers Keith Canfield and James McAnney for hostile work environment under Title VII and § 1983, and for retaliation under Title VII. Davis alleged three incidents: a bag remnant and twine resembling a noose, a toy rat with a noose outside his apartment, and racist graffiti in the workplace restroom. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the bag remnant did not objectively resemble a noose, the toy rat incident could not be attributed to the defendants, and DOCCS took appropriate remedial action regarding the graffiti. Consequently, the court concluded that the incidents were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment, and the retaliation claim also failed due to lack of attributable adverse action.

DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentCorrection OfficerWorkplace HarassmentRacial DiscriminationCivil RightsTitle VIISection 1983
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2013

Kemp v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

This case involves five current or former train conductors who sued their employer, CSX Transportation, Inc., alleging racial discrimination under federal and New York state law. Plaintiffs claimed disparate treatment in discipline and work opportunities, and a hostile work environment characterized by racial slurs and graffiti. The court addressed CSX's motions for summary judgment, which challenged the timeliness and merits of the claims. While some disparate treatment claims related to work opportunities were dismissed as time-barred, the court found sufficient material facts for hostile work environment claims and certain disparate treatment claims regarding suspensions and terminations to proceed to trial. Additionally, the defendant's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert witness was denied.

Racial discriminationHostile work environmentDisparate treatmentSummary judgmentEmployment lawCivil Rights Act of 1866New York Human Rights LawTrain conductorsAbsenteeism policyDisciplinary action
References
30
Case No. M2003-00287-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2004

Ralph Sasser v. Quebecor Printing,(USA) Corp., D/B/A Quebecor Printing Clarkesville

Ralph Sasser, an employee of Quebecor Printing, suffered an on-the-job injury resulting in a leg amputation. Quebecor accommodated him with a clerical position, but Sasser alleged harassment in his new workspace, a community desk in the maintenance area. Incidents included grease, food residue, dirty footprints, and profane graffiti on his monitor. Sasser filed a lawsuit under the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Tennessee Handicap Act, claiming a hostile work environment based on disability, retaliation, and discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment for Quebecor, finding insufficient evidence of harassment directed at Sasser or linked to his disability. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that the incidents did not amount to harassment and lacked a connection to Sasser's disability.

hostile work environmentdisability discriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActTennessee Handicap Actsummary judgmentworkplace harassmentretaliationdiscriminationintentional infliction of emotional distressnegligent maintenance
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilburn v. EASTMAN KODAK CORP.

Plaintiff David Wilburn, an African-American, sued his former employer, Eastman Kodak Corp., under Title VII for alleged racial discrimination and retaliation, specifically a hostile work environment. Kodak moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior lawsuit Wilburn filed in 2001, where summary judgment was also granted in Kodak's favor. The court found that Wilburn's current allegations regarding 'racist graffiti' and 'intimidation' were a continuation of the conduct previously alleged and not qualitatively different. Even on the merits, the court concluded the alleged incidents were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish an actionable hostile work environment. Therefore, the court granted Kodak's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Title VIIRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentRes JudicataClaim PreclusionFederal CourtEmployment LawWorkplace HarassmentEastman Kodak
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Remy v. City of New York

This case stems from a fatal motor vehicle accident on October 17, 2000, on the Staten Island Expressway. A truck owned by Pepsi Cola Bottling Company and operated by Jack S. Barasch crashed into a Department of Transportation (DOT) truck, resulting in the death of passenger Jean Remy. The accident occurred after two DOT trucks had stopped in the right lane to remove graffiti, with the rear attenuator truck displaying hazard lights and a left arrow warning. Barasch, whose view was obstructed, changed lanes into the right lane and struck the attenuator truck. The Supreme Court granted the City defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that Barasch's actions were the sole proximate cause, a decision subsequently affirmed by the appellate court.

Motor Vehicle AccidentWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentProximate CauseObstructed ViewLane ChangeAppellate ReviewAffirmed OrderTraffic AccidentNegligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ralph Jones Sheet Metal, Inc.

The court addressed Defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding Plaintiff's Title VII claims of racial discrimination and hostile work environment, alongside claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). Defendant argued the alleged harasser, Kenny Rainey, was not a supervisor, the racial slurs were not severe or pervasive, and the complaint mechanism was not utilized. However, the Court found significant disputed material facts, including Rainey's de facto supervisory authority and the pervasive nature of the racial harassment. Evidence presented by the Plaintiff indicated numerous instances of racial slurs, racial graffiti, and management's inadequate response. Consequently, the Court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment, determining that genuine issues of fact existed for trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary Judgment DenialSupervisory AuthorityRacial EpithetsEmployee HarassmentEmployer LiabilityAnti-Harassment PolicyUnion Collective Bargaining
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marbar, Inc. v. Katz

This summary holdover proceeding addresses whether a long-term rent-stabilized tenant can be evicted for unauthorized alterations. The tenant replaced an old outdoor wooden deck with a new, larger one and installed a new brick patio without landlord's permission. Claims regarding debris, covered boiler vents, and graffiti were dismissed. The court found the deck and patio to be material unauthorized alterations. However, recognizing the policy against forfeiture of long-term tenancies, the court granted the landlord a final judgment of possession but stayed the warrant of eviction for 10 days, allowing the tenant to cure the breach. The cure involves removing the cement patio and, if the old deck is gone, posting a $5,000 bond to cover restoration costs upon future vacatur.

Holdover proceedingRent stabilizationUnauthorized alterationsLease violationEquitable reliefForfeiture of tenancyConditional judgmentCure periodLandlord-tenant disputeProperty rights
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp.

Five Caucasian employees (Lynette Barrett, WT Melton, Treva Nickens, Eugene Julien, and Larry Schuster) sued their employer, Whirlpool Corp., alleging a hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII and Section 1981 at its La Vergne, Tennessee facility. They claimed exposure to racist slurs, jokes, and graffiti, along with differential treatment of black co-workers, which led to their ostracization, unfavorable job assignments, and constructive termination for some due to their association with or advocacy for black colleagues. The court granted Whirlpool's motions for summary judgment, primarily on grounds of untimeliness for many hostile work environment claims and insufficient evidence of severe/pervasive harassment or a causal link for retaliation claims. The court found that generalized workplace friendships did not establish an association sufficient to bring discrimination claims.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VII DiscriminationSection 1981Summary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationRacial HarassmentWorkplace AssociationSixth Circuit Court
References
36
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07571 [133 AD3d 87]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2015

Quinones v. Olmstead Props., Inc.

Pedro Quinones, an employee of North Shore Neon Sign, was injured while painting graffiti on a billboard leased by Fuel Outdoor, LLC. He fell from concrete blocks, having reportedly forgone available safety equipment like a cherry picker, ladders, and a safety harness, which he claimed were inadequate due to site conditions. The Supreme Court initially granted Quinones partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, asserting a failure to provide proper safety devices. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding conflicting evidence regarding the adequacy of the safety devices and whether Quinones' actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby necessitating a trial. The dissenting opinion argued that Fuel's expert failed to adequately counter Quinones' claims of device inadequacy.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentFall from heightSafety devicesSole proximate causeAppellate DivisionWorker injuryBillboard maintenanceConstruction accidentElevation risk
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Aboaf

This case involves multiple defendants charged with violating Penal Law § 240.35 (4) for being masked in a public place with others similarly disguised during a May Day demonstration in Union Square Park. The defendants, including Daniel S. Chard, Christopher Teret, Darren Kramer, and Dennis Burke, faced additional charges such as resisting arrest, possession of burglar's tools, and possession of a graffiti instrument. They filed a collective omnibus motion to dismiss the information, arguing that Penal Law § 240.35 (4) violates their First Amendment rights to free association and is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court denied the defendants' claims, finding they did not establish a nexus between compelled disclosure and harassment, and held the statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, especially when construed to prohibit masks for no legitimate purpose. Consequently, the court denied both the motions to dismiss the information and to suppress the recovered tangible property.

First AmendmentFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechLoiteringAnti-mask LawVagueness ChallengeOverbreadth ChallengePenal Law § 240.35 (4)Public DemonstrationAnarchists
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 11 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