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. 00-CV-1598
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

Jenkins v. NORTHWOOD REHAB. & EXTENDED CARE FACIL.

Plaintiff Pamela Joan Jenkins sued her prospective employer for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to accommodate her back problems which limited her lifting capacity as a physical therapist. The employment offer was rescinded after a health questionnaire revealed her inability to perform maximum assist lifts, a job requirement. Highgate considered and rejected various accommodations, deeming them impractical, unsafe, or requiring the elimination of essential job functions. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green burden-shifting test and found that Jenkins could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA, unable to perform the essential functions of the job even with accommodation. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and the state law claims without prejudice.

ADA discriminationDisability employmentReasonable accommodationEssential job functionsSummary judgmentPhysical therapistBack injuryMcDonnell Douglas testQualified individualEEOC claim
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Typographical Union No. 6 v. AA Job Printing

The case concerns a petition by New York Typographical Union No. 6 to confirm arbitration awards against employers AA Job Printing Corp. and The Jewish Press, Inc., for violations of a collective bargaining agreement. The employers cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing the awards were not final and that a pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) matter preempted the action. The court noted the employers' procedural defaults but favored a decision on the merits. District Judge ROBERT L. CARTER ruled that the arbitration awards were final and definite, and the federal court's jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act was independent of the NLRB's jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the employers' unsupported claim of sexual discrimination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Union, confirming the arbitration awards, and denied the employers' cross-motion.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRASummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionNLRB PreemptionDefault JudgmentProcedural RulesEmployer-Union Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jenkins v. Northwood Rehabilitation & Extended Care Facility

The plaintiff, a physical therapist with a long-standing back condition, sued her prospective employer, Highgate Manor, for disability discrimination after they rescinded her job offer. Highgate deemed her inability to perform maximum assist lifts, requiring her to lift 50-100 pounds, an essential function of the physical therapist role. Despite considering accommodations such as assigning an aide or using mechanical lifts, Highgate concluded these were impractical, burdensome, or unsafe for patient care. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Munson, applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test and granted Highgate's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff was not a "qualified individual" as she could not perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and state law claims without prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActEmployment LawReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsSummary JudgmentPhysical TherapyBack InjuryHiring PracticesMcDonnell Douglas Test
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2016

Reyes v. Phoenix Beverages, Inc.

Plaintiff Eddy Reyes sued his former employer, Phoenix Beverages, Inc., alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Reyes claimed he was denied reinstatement to his sales representative position after taking FMLA leave due to a non-work-related injury. The court addressed Defendant's arguments regarding judicial estoppel and the Plaintiff's failure to provide a full-duty medical certification. The Court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that Defendant failed to provide timely notice of fitness-for-duty requirements and that certain physical activities were not essential job functions. However, genuine factual disputes remain regarding whether Reyes was truly able to perform the essential functions of his job at the end of his FMLA leave, necessitating a trial.

FMLANYCHRLDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentJudicial EstoppelFitness-for-Duty CertificationEssential Job FunctionsReasonable AccommodationEmployee RightsEmployer Obligations
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2001

Mulhern v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The case involves Kevin Mulhern, a former employee of Eastman Kodak Company, who sued Kodak for discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and New York State Human Rights Law (NYHRL) due to his Nail-Patella Syndrome. Mulhern alleged that Kodak failed to reasonably accommodate his disability by not allowing him to work exclusively in the less physically demanding PRS area, despite his ability to perform those tasks. Kodak argued that rotation to more strenuous 3R tasks was an essential job function and that Mulhern's disability application statements contradicted his ability to work. The court denied Kodak's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding the essential functions of Mulhern's job, the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, and the interpretation of his disability application statements. The court also found triable issues of fact regarding the FMLA claim.

ADAFMLANYHRLDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsSummary JudgmentWork RestrictionsMedical LeaveJudicial Estoppel
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guerrero Toro v. Northstar Demolition

Plaintiff Alexander Guerrero Toro, a pro se asbestos handler, sued NorthStar Demolition & Remediation LP under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging failure to accommodate his carpal tunnel syndrome, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and retaliation. After experiencing pain in his right arm, Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty, limiting his ability to perform essential job functions. Defendant provided various temporary light-duty assignments, but eventually, no suitable tasks remained due to seasonal changes and Plaintiff's ongoing limitations. Plaintiff also claimed harassment from co-workers and supervisors, and retaliation for filing administrative complaints. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, or that a hostile work environment or retaliation existed based on admissible evidence. The NYSHRL claims were also dismissed, with some being jurisdictionally barred due to the election of remedies.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeReasonable AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
122
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharp v. Abate

Plaintiffs, correction officers for the New York City Department of Correction, sued the Department under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other state laws, alleging discriminatory termination or attempted termination due to physical or emotional conditions. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that contact with prisoners is an essential job function that plaintiffs cannot perform. The court found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether inmate supervision is an essential function, noting that many non-contact positions exist and are filled by both medically monitored and able-bodied officers. Consequently, the court denied most of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, allowing the plaintiffs' claims for damages to proceed. However, the motion was granted regarding plaintiff Karen Sessoms, who was deemed not disabled under the ADA and failed to notify the Department of her condition.

Americans with Disabilities ActEmployment DiscriminationCorrection OfficersEssential Job FunctionsReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentMedical ImpairmentDisability LawCivil Service LawCollateral Estoppel
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pender v. District Council 37 of American Federation

Plaintiff Patricia A. Pender brought an employment discrimination suit against her former employer, District Council 37 (DC 37), alleging termination due to disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York law. Pender, who had undergone a liver transplant, was terminated after a medical leave and a temporary modified assignment, with DC 37 claiming she could not perform the essential functions of her Council Representative job. An arbitrator, after an extensive grievance proceeding, had previously found in favor of DC 37, concluding Pender was unable to perform her duties even with accommodations. The court, affording significant weight to the arbitrator's decision and considering Pender's own admissions of disability, found insufficient evidence for a jury to conclude she could perform her job. Therefore, the court granted DC 37's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActSummary JudgmentArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsSocial Security DisabilityArbitrator's Decision Weight
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ongsiako v. City of New York

Plaintiff Juanito Ongsiako sued the City of New York and its Department of Environmental Protection, alleging national origin and disability discrimination, constructive discharge, and retaliation. He claimed he was impermissibly transferred back to a physically demanding job at Pike Street despite a back injury and faced derogatory ethnic names. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted. The Court ruled that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for disability discrimination, finding his impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity, nor was he a qualified individual able to perform essential job functions. The claims for national origin discrimination and retaliation were also dismissed due to a lack of adverse employment action. Finally, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationADAConstructive DischargeRetaliationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentWorkplace Injury
References
23
Case No. 00-CV-6118, 00-CV-6101
Regular Panel Decision

Bonner v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Leslie Maynard and Melvin Bonner, both first-class gas fitters for New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG), suffered work-related injuries that resulted in permanent partial disabilities. After a period of light-duty assignments, NYSEG placed them on disability leave, citing the unavailability of such work and their inability to perform the essential functions of a first-class gas fitter. Consequently, Maynard and Bonner filed complaints alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court granted NYSEG's motions for summary judgment, concluding that neither plaintiff was capable of performing the essential functions of their desired job, even with reasonable accommodation. The court further clarified that the ADA does not require employers to create new positions, like a light-duty first-class gas fitter role, to accommodate disabled employees. Therefore, both complaints were dismissed.

Americans with Disabilities ActADASummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationDisability RightsEssential Job FunctionsReasonable AccommodationLight-Duty WorkPermanent Partial DisabilityWorkplace Injury
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,321 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