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. M2000-02573-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2001

Richard Wilson v. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Dr. Richard Wilson, a tenured professor at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC), appealed his dismissal for alleged sexual harassment and persistent policy violations. The Chancery Court had affirmed an Administrative Judge's decision to terminate his employment. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Dr. Wilson's conduct toward a student, Ms. Oo, was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to meet Title VII's sexual harassment standard. Furthermore, the court found that UTC's sexual harassment policy, which referenced Title VII, did not adequately inform Dr. Wilson that his actions would constitute a violation, nor did prior warnings about inviting students home suffice as policy violations. The appellate court deemed the Administrative Judge's decision arbitrary, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Sexual Harassment PolicyFaculty TerminationAcademic FreedomTenured EmploymentUniversity DisciplineDue Process RightsAppellate Standards of ReviewHostile EnvironmentTitle VII LiabilityTitle IX Compliance
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richards v. Stolzenberg

Petitioner, an employee at Westchester County Medical Center, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Hospitals of Westchester County that terminated her employment for misconduct. The misconduct involved two incidents where she allegedly attempted to pull down male co-workers' trousers, violating sexual harassment policy and the Ethics Code. While the court upheld findings related to the sexual harassment policy, it found no basis for violating the Ethics Code, as the code lacked relevant provisions. Consequently, two specifications were dismissed, and the case was remitted for a reassessment of the penalty.

Employment TerminationMisconductSexual Harassment PolicyEthics CodeCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate CourtWestchester CountyCredibility Assessment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1993

New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union

The New York City Transit Authority appealed a Supreme Court judgment that affirmed a Tripartite Arbitration Board's decision. The Board had modified the dismissal sanction for employee Samuel Douglas, who was found guilty of sexual harassment, to a suspension without pay. The Transit Authority argued this modification violated public policy by undermining its efforts to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aims to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. However, the appellate court balanced the strong public policy against sexual harassment with the necessity of exercising due restraint in vacating arbitration awards. The court found that the arbitration award was not irrational and that public policy considerations did not prohibit the imposition of a suspension in lieu of a dismissal, especially given Douglas's lack of prior similar misconduct. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed, with costs.

Sexual HarassmentArbitration AwardPublic PolicyEmployer LiabilityEmployee DisciplineSuspensionDismissalCPLR Article 75Title VIIAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. New York City Department of Correction

The plaintiff, a Deputy Warden, sued the City of New York for retaliation under Title VII, alleging adverse employment actions after reporting his supervisor, Warden Lorquet, for perceived sexual harassment of his secretary. The alleged harassment consisted of two isolated incidents: Warden Lorquet asking the secretary why she hadn't called him, and later yelling at her for a tardy report, suggesting she be fired. The court granted summary judgment to the City, finding the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The judge ruled that the plaintiff lacked a good faith, reasonable belief that the supervisor's conduct constituted a hostile work environment or quid pro quo sexual harassment under Title VII due to the isolated nature and lack of severity of the incidents. The decision underscored that violations of internal company policy do not automatically translate to federal law violations.

RetaliationTitle VIISexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentSummary JudgmentProtected ActivityGood Faith BeliefReasonable BeliefEmployment Discrimination
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Akines v. SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Female correctional officers at the Shelby County Correctional Center (SCCC) filed a lawsuit against Shelby County Government, alleging sexual harassment by inmates and some co-workers/supervisors, creating a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and Section 1983. The plaintiffs, including Chiffon Barden and others, contended that the defendant failed to implement appropriate preventive and remedial actions. The court found that Shelby County maintained an Inmate Discipline Policy (IDP) and generally responded to reported incidents by disciplining inmates and addressing co-worker harassment when reported. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish the defendant's liability under either Title VII or Section 1983, determining that the county was not deliberately indifferent to the harassment and that no municipal policy or custom caused their alleged constitutional injuries. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted for all plaintiffs.

Hostile work environmentSexual harassmentTitle VIISection 1983Summary judgmentCorrectional facilityInmate misconductEmployer liabilityMunicipal policyDeliberate indifference
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hull v. Petrillo

Plaintiffs, distributors of 'The Black Panther' newspaper, sought a temporary restraining order and injunction against officials of the City of Mount Vernon. They alleged harassment and unconstitutional interference with newspaper distribution due to the application of a city ordinance requiring a peddler's license, violating their First Amendment rights. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that any incidents of interference were deviations from official policy and that the ordinance did not apply to newspaper sales. The court, referencing Belknap v. Leary, found no evidence of ongoing official policy violations or a need for injunctive relief, as prior infringements had ceased. Consequently, the defendants' motion was re-characterized as a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) and was granted, thereby dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

Freedom of the PressFirst Amendment RightsTemporary Restraining OrderSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCity OrdinancesNewspaper DistributionPolice HarassmentConstitutional Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AutoZone, Inc. v. Reyes

Salvador Reyes, a 62-year-old former employee, sued AutoZone, Inc. for age discrimination after his termination, allegedly for violating the company's sexual harassment policy. A jury found in favor of Reyes, awarding significant damages, but the trial court reduced the award. The appellate court further modified the judgment, decreasing the back pay award and deleting punitive damages, while affirming the judgment in all other respects. The court concluded that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that age was a motivating factor in Reyes's discharge, citing a manager's direct statements and disparate treatment of younger employees with similar policy violations. Challenges regarding jury instructions and the calculation of compensatory damages were also addressed and largely overruled.

Age discriminationSexual harassment policyWrongful terminationTexas Labor CodeCompensatory damagesBack payPunitive damagesLegal sufficiency reviewJury instructionsDisparate treatment
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, current and former correction officers, sued the City of New York alleging race and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on employment discrimination claims for all plaintiffs under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, finding that assignment to a rotating 'wheel' or undesirable permanent posts did not constitute an adverse employment action in the discrimination context. Summary judgment was also granted against O'Brien's retaliation claims, as her protected activity postdated the alleged retaliatory actions, and against Quick's standalone sexual harassment claim, which was deemed not severe enough to alter employment conditions. However, the court denied summary judgment on retaliation claims for Adams, Castleberry, Monche, and Quick, finding issues of fact regarding whether reassignments were retaliatory. Summary judgment was also denied for hostile work environment claims (general and Monche's individual sexual harassment claim) due to triable issues of fact regarding pervasive derogatory comments, discriminatory bathroom policies, and Supervisor Olivo's conduct towards Monche. Finally, summary judgment was denied on the Monell claim under § 1983, as there were triable issues regarding the EEO's corroboration policy leading to deliberate indifference to constitutional violations.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionMunicipal LiabilitySection 1983Monell Claim
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharp v. City of Houston

Plaintiff Patrice Sharp, an officer with the Houston Police Department, filed claims of sexual discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for "pervasive departmental misconduct" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Houston and several individuals. Sharp alleged frequent sexual harassment by her supervisors, Bice and Hankins, including offensive jokes, lewd comments, and inappropriate physical contact, which was corroborated by other officers. She also claimed retaliation after reporting the harassment, experiencing ostracism, sabotage of equipment, and lack of assistance. The court granted summary judgment on Sharp's Title VII retaliation claim and her Fourteenth Amendment § 1983 claim against the City, finding the alleged retaliatory actions did not constitute "ultimate employment decisions" under Title VII and that there was no policy or custom of sexual harassment for the §1983 claim. However, summary judgment was denied for Sharp's Title VII sexual harassment claim and her First Amendment § 1983 retaliation claim, citing existing fact issues regarding the pervasive nature of harassment and whether the alleged campaign of reprisal was severe enough to violate her First Amendment rights.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1983Hostile Work EnvironmentEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentPolice MisconductMunicipal LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
100
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02579 [193 AD3d 1305]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Matter of New York Off. for People with Dev.al Disabilities (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO)

The New York Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (petitioner) sought to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated employee Chad Dominie, who was found to have sexually harassed a coworker. The arbitrator had ordered Dominie's reinstatement despite sustaining multiple charges of sexual harassment, citing mitigating factors. Supreme Court granted the petition, vacating the award and remitting for a new penalty before a different arbitrator. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that the arbitrator's unconditional reinstatement of Dominie violated the strong public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court emphasized the egregious and escalating nature of Dominie's conduct, concluding that the award failed to protect other employees and conflicted with the employer's obligation to eliminate sexual harassment.

Sexual HarassmentWorkplace SafetyArbitration ReviewPublic Policy ViolationEmployee MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsReinstatement OrderAppellate Court DecisionCollective BargainingEmployer Responsibility
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 9,667 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