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
Sep 06, 1991

Florence v. Frank

Gerald G. Florence sued the United States Postal Service, alleging race and sex discrimination under Title VII, handicap discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, and breach of a collective bargaining agreement. Florence, injured on the job, was transferred to a limited duty station, claiming discrimination and lack of reasonable accommodation for his chronic back injury. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment for the Postal Service, finding no evidence of race or sex discrimination, and ruling Florence was not a 'qualified' handicapped individual. His claim of a breached collective bargaining agreement failed due to insufficient evidence of the union's arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith representation. The District Court adopted these findings and granted summary judgment.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHandicap DiscriminationRehabilitation ActTitle VIICollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentFederal Civil ProcedureUnited States Postal Service
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aikens v. Banana Republic, Inc.

Rehnee Aikens, a former sales associate and stockroom manager at Banana Republic, filed a discrimination lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming handicap and race discrimination, and constructive discharge. Aikens, who suffers from macular degeneration, alleged demotion when her job classification was corrected from assistant manager to stock person, which resulted in a loss of incentive bonuses. She also claimed constructive discharge due to intolerable working conditions and racial discrimination. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Banana Republic, finding that Aikens' ADA claims were not cognizable as the alleged demotion occurred before the ADA's effective date. Furthermore, Aikens failed to establish a prima facie case for handicap or race discrimination, lacked evidence of intolerable working conditions for constructive discharge, and failed to mitigate her damages by not seeking new employment.

Summary JudgmentAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Title VII Civil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationConstructive DischargeMacular DegenerationJob ReclassificationPrima Facie Case
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brunner v. Al Attar

Brunner was terminated from Apollo Paint & Body by Farouk Al Attar, who feared she would spread AIDS due to her volunteer work with the AIDS Foundation. She sued for wrongful termination, retaliatory discharge, and handicap discrimination, but the trial court granted summary judgment for the employer. On appeal, Brunner argued her termination violated a public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine and constituted handicap discrimination under Texas law. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that her case did not fit the narrow public policy exceptions recognized in Texas and that she had not established she was a "handicapped person" under the relevant statute. Consequently, the court upheld the dismissal of her claims.

Employment-at-willWrongful terminationAIDS discriminationPublic policy exceptionHandicap discriminationTexas lawSummary judgmentVolunteer workAppellate reviewRetaliatory discharge
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Noel v. Cornell University Medical College

Plaintiff Jean H. Noel sued Cornell University Medical College, alleging national origin and physical handicap discrimination after being discharged due to a back injury and subsequently denied a desk clerk position. Earlier, Noel's national origin claims were dismissed, but the physical handicap claims proceeded. Cornell moved for reargument, contending Noel's claims were time-barred under both the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The court found that Noel's Rehabilitation Act claim, filed in October 1992, was untimely as the discrimination occurred in April 1988, exceeding the three-year statute of limitations. Furthermore, the Americans with Disabilities Act was deemed not retroactive to cover the alleged April 1988 discrimination. Consequently, Cornell's motion for reargument was granted, and Noel's entire complaint was dismissed.

National Origin DiscriminationPhysical Handicap DiscriminationRehabilitation ActAmericans with Disabilities ActStatute of LimitationsEmployment DiscriminationTime-barred ClaimsMotion for ReargumentComplaint DismissalWorkers' Compensation
References
3
Case No. 01A01-9602-CH-00073
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 1998

Devore v. Deloitte & Touche

This appeal concerns an employment discrimination action filed by Maurice DeVore against Deloitte & Touche. DeVore, a computer programmer, alleged he was terminated due to race discrimination and in retaliation for filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The trial court granted summary judgment to Deloitte & Touche, determining DeVore failed to present sufficient evidence of discrimination or pretext. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that DeVore's statistical evidence and personal beliefs were insufficient to prove pretext for the employer's stated reason of inadequate job performance.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextual ReasonStatistical EvidenceJob PerformanceTraining DisparityEEOC Charge
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stanford v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

The plaintiff, a provisional human rights specialist, sued her employer, the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and several individual defendants for employment discrimination. She alleged discrimination based on national origin and retaliation after her termination, which followed a history of insubordination and conflict with her supervisor. The court found no evidence to support either the national origin discrimination claim, noting similar racial backgrounds among parties, or the retaliation claim, as the Commission had encouraged employees to challenge the civil service examination in question. The decision concluded that the plaintiff's termination stemmed from an irreconcilable personal antagonism with her supervisor rather than any discriminatory reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, affirming that federal courts should not intervene in personnel decisions based on non-discriminatory grounds.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimInsubordinationProvisional Employee TerminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActEEOC ComplaintSupervisor-Employee ConflictFederal District Court CaseWorkplace Conduct
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Board of Education v. Ambach

This CPLR article 78 proceeding challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Education. The Commissioner ordered the petitioner, the Committee on the Handicapped, District 28 (COH), to reimburse Marilyn P. for tuition and maintenance costs for her handicapped child. The COH had initially found the child not handicapped and failed to provide timely formal written notice of its determination to the mother, violating Education Law regulations. An independent hearing officer reversed the COH's finding but denied reimbursement. Upon appeal, the Commissioner affirmed the handicapped finding and ordered reimbursement due to the COH's procedural violations. The court upheld the Commissioner's finding that the child was handicapped and the entitlement to reimbursement, citing a rational basis for the decision and deference to the agency's interpretation. However, the court modified the determination, annulling the order for the petitioner to pay the full cost, and remitted the matter for apportionment of costs between the petitioner and the State of New York, as per Education Law sections 4405 and 4407.

CPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewEducation LawHandicapped Child PlacementTuition ReimbursementProcedural Due ProcessNotice RequirementsTimeliness ViolationsAgency DeferenceCost Apportionment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. United States Post Office

The plaintiff moved for judgment against the U.S. Postal Service, alleging failure to complete a joint status report and various claims stemming from an on-the-job injury in April 1989. These claims included allegations of falsified forms, threats, and discrimination based on a handicap, primarily under Title 5 and the Rehabilitation Act. The Court denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment, finding no sufficient basis for default. Upon sua sponte reconsideration, the Court vacated a prior order and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims, dismissing those under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act with prejudice, and other Title 5, handicap discrimination, and due process claims without prejudice due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The case was dismissed in its entirety, with costs taxed to the plaintiff.

Motion for JudgmentMotion to DismissAdministrative RemediesSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Employees Compensation ActRehabilitation ActDue Process ClaimsDismissal With PrejudiceDismissal Without PrejudiceUnited States Postal Service
References
18
Case No. 01-A-01-9702-CH-00056; 90-66-204
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 1997

Ogburn v. The Gas & Water Dept., City of Clarksville

A meter reader, Roy Dean Ogburn, sued the City of Clarksville and its Gas and Water Department after he was fired following a dog attack and subsequent back injury. A jury initially found the defendants liable for handicap discrimination and for depriving Ogburn of his due process right to a pre-termination hearing, awarding him $450,000 in damages. On appeal, the court reversed the jury verdict on the due process claim, concluding that Ogburn, as an employee at will, did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment, despite the city charter's appeals procedure. However, the appellate court affirmed the jury's finding of handicap discrimination, stating there was sufficient evidence that Ogburn was capable of performing his duties. The case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial on damages alone, as the original award did not differentiate between the two claims, and for reconsideration of attorney fees in light of the altered liability.

Handicap discriminationDue processEmployment at willWrongful terminationCompensatory damagesAttorney feesRemandAppealJury verdictMunicipal employment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Realbuto v. Howe

Lori Boyar Realbuto, a former New York State employee with a hearing impairment and chronic fatigue immunity deficiency syndrome, sued New York State and several officials, alleging discrimination based on her handicaps. She claimed violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the due process and equal protection clauses, after her noncompetitive "55-b" position was eliminated during a reduction-in-force, preventing her from "bumping" a more junior competitive class employee. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Realbuto failed to demonstrate discrimination "solely" on the basis of her handicap, as her inability to bump resulted from her classification as a noncompetitive employee who did not take a competitive examination, rather than her disability itself. The Court also dismissed her equal protection and due process claims, finding the civil service classification rational and no protected interest in the claimed benefits.

Disability DiscriminationRehabilitation Act of 1973Americans With Disabilities ActCivil Service LawNoncompetitive Class EmploymentBumping RightsSummary JudgmentEqual Protection ClauseDue Process ClauseHandicapped Individuals Employment
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 2,416 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