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

Cantwell v. Holder

Plaintiffs Sally and Paul Cantwell, along with their adopted son Samuel Alexander Edwards, appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that refused to recognize a nunc pro tunc adoption order from the New York Family Court. The BIA and USCIS had denied Samuel's immigrant petition and adjustment of status application, arguing the adoption was not finalized before his 16th birthday, relying on Matter of Cariaga. The District Court, presided over by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, reversed the BIA's decision. The court held that the BIA erred by not giving full faith and credit to the New York Family Court's nunc pro tunc order, which legally recognized Samuel's adoption prior to his 16th birthday despite being formally entered after. The court found the BIA's strict interpretation of the statute to be arbitrary and capricious, contrary to Congress's intent to keep bona fide immigrant families united, and not entitled to Chevron deference.

Immigration LawAdoption LawNunc Pro Tunc OrderBoard of Immigration AppealsUSCISChevron DeferenceFull Faith and CreditJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawFamily Unification
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Amigon

Plaintiff Maria Flores sued her former employer, La Flor Bakery, for unpaid overtime wages under federal and state laws. During discovery, La Flor Bakery requested Flores' immigration documents, social security number, and passports, arguing this information was relevant to a defense based on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) and the Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. Supreme Court decision, which it contended would preclude back pay for undocumented aliens. Flores filed a motion for a protective order, asserting that her immigration status was irrelevant to her Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims and that disclosing such information would have an intimidating effect. The court, distinguishing Hoffman Plastic as applying to back pay for work not performed, found Flores' immigration status irrelevant to her claims for wages for work already completed. Consequently, the court granted Flores' motion for a protective order, concluding that the potential prejudice of disclosing her immigration status significantly outweighed any minimal probative value for the defense.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAImmigration Reform and Control ActIRCAundocumented workersback payovertime wagesprotective orderdiscoveryimmigration status
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barahona v. Trustees of Columbia University

Plaintiff, alleging personal injury from construction work and violations of Labor Law, initiated a lawsuit against the defendant. During discovery, the defendant sought authorizations and records pertaining to the plaintiff's immigration status, arguing its relevance to claims for future lost earnings. The plaintiff resisted, asserting irrelevance and potential prejudice. The court, referencing the New York Court of Appeals decision in Majlinger, affirmed that while undocumented status does not preclude recovery of lost wages, immigration status is a valid factor for a jury to consider in assessing future lost earnings. Consequently, the defendant's motion to compel the production of all requested immigration-related documents was granted.

DiscoveryImmigration StatusLost WagesFuture EarningsLabor LawCPLR 3122CPLR 3124CPLR 3126Motion to CompelPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angamarca v. Da Ciro, Inc.

Plaintiff Carlos Angamarea, an undocumented immigrant, filed a lawsuit against Da Ciro, Inc. and its principal, Ciro Verde, alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. After returning to his native Ecuador, Angamarea sought to provide deposition and trial testimony remotely. Defendant Da Ciro moved to dismiss the claims due to Angamarea's failure to appear in person. The Court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis, denied the motion, ruling that Angamarea's immigration status constituted compelling circumstances for remote testimony. The decision emphasized that employers cannot leverage an employee's immigration status as a defense to FLSA claims, especially when the status was known at the time of employment.

Undocumented ImmigrantRemote DepositionRemote TestimonyWage and Hour LawsFLSAFair Labor Standards ActMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSouthern District of New YorkDiscovery
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1992

Kipper v. Doron Precision Systems, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal regarding claims of marital status and age discrimination under Executive Law § 296. The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, was laid off during a workforce reduction. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the age discrimination claim, finding that the defendant provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the layoff, which the plaintiff failed to rebut as pretextual. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the marital status discrimination claim, citing direct evidence of discriminatory intent from the plaintiff's supervisor, which created a question of credibility suitable for trial. The order was modified, denying summary judgment on the marital status claim and affirming the rest.

Age DiscriminationMarital Status DiscriminationSummary JudgmentWorkforce ReductionEconomic ConditionsPretextDirect EvidenceCredibilityEmployment LawAppeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manhattan Pizza Hut, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

Chief Judge Cooke dissents from the majority's decision, which reversed an order finding Manhattan Pizza Hut, Inc.'s anti-nepotism rule discriminatory. The rule prohibits employees from supervising relatives, including spouses, thereby discriminating against married persons based solely on their marital status. Cooke argues that this policy violates Executive Law Section 296, which forbids employment discrimination based on marital status, as it targets married individuals while overlooking other close personal relationships. He emphasizes that this discrimination can discourage marriage or encourage divorce and impede employment opportunities, thus undermining the protected status of marriage. Cooke concludes that the rule is not a bona fide occupational qualification and votes to affirm the Appellate Division's order, which presumably ruled against Pizza Hut.

Anti-nepotism policyEmployment discriminationMarital status discriminationExecutive Law Section 296Bona fide occupational qualificationAppellate reviewDissenting opinionEmployee rightsWorkplace conflictFamily status
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pibouin v. CA, Inc.

Plaintiff Jean-Phillipe Pibouin initiated an employment action against CA, Inc., alleging discrimination based on marital status and national origin under the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL), claims for unpaid commissions under New York Labor Law (NYLL), and state equitable remedies for unpaid severance. The court ultimately granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of all claims. The marital status discrimination claim was rejected as NYHRL protects marital status itself (e.g., married vs. single), not marriage to a specific individual or coworker. The national origin discrimination claim, based on plaintiff's French descent and comments about his accent, was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of a direct link between the alleged discriminatory remarks and the adverse employment actions of demotion and termination. Additionally, claims for unpaid commissions were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to provide specific proof of outstanding amounts, and his severance claim was found to be preempted by ERISA, having been previously withdrawn with prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationMarital Status DiscriminationNYHRLNYLLERISA PreemptionSummary JudgmentUnpaid CommissionsSeverance PayAccent Discrimination
References
50
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06290
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2024

Matter of McCabe v. 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp.

Maryann McCabe, who lived with her long-term romantic partner David Burrows in his cooperative unit, sought to acquire his lease and shares after his death. The cooperative board denied her request for an automatic transfer, which was available to a shareholder's "spouse," because she was not legally married to Burrows. McCabe argued that this denial constituted marital status discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that "marital status" in the NYCHRL refers to the legal condition of being single, married, divorced, or widowed, and does not extend to discrimination based on one's relationship to a particular person (i.e., not being married to Burrows). The Court found that the City Council's legislative history and subsequent amendments, including the addition of "partnership status" and "caregiver status," indicated a deliberate scope of protections that did not encompass unmarried romantic partners for automatic transfer of shares based on "marital status."

Civil RightsNew York City Human Rights LawDiscriminationMarital StatusCooperative BoardHousing DiscriminationAutomatic TransferUnmarried PartnersAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 3,949 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