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

Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind

Plaintiff, an African-American woman, sued her employer, Jewish Guild for the Blind, and several supervisors, alleging race discrimination, retaliation, aiding and abetting, and constructive discharge under state and city human rights laws. Her claims stemmed from alleged racial slurs, unequal work conditions, and perceived demotion following a departmental reorganization. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff's performance issues, particularly regarding patient chart documentation, were legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for her treatment and eventual termination due to job abandonment. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed the denial of summary judgment, finding plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of discrimination or to show defendants' reasons were pretextual. The court concluded that isolated racial remarks alone were insufficient to establish a hostile work environment or employment discrimination, as other alleged conduct was either unsupported, contradicted, or justified by legitimate business concerns.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimConstructive DischargeHuman Rights LawJob AbandonmentWork Performance IssuesAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 1997

Almanzar v. Collegiate Church Corp.

In this employment discrimination case based on age, the Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant successfully demonstrated legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact concerning the falsity of these reasons or that discrimination was more likely the actual cause. An alleged statement by a supervisor about trying to get someone younger was deemed an isolated and ambiguous statement, insufficient to support a finding of age discrimination, as it did not directly state or imply discriminatory termination.

employment discriminationage discriminationsummary judgmentprima facie casenondiscriminatory reasonsisolated statementambiguous statementappellate reviewtrial court decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Segarra v. Rural Opportunities, Inc.

Plaintiff Barbara Segarra sued her former employer, Rural Opportunities, Inc. (ROI), alleging discrimination based on disability and age under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and New York Human Rights Law. Segarra claimed she was denied a position and ultimately discharged unlawfully. ROI moved for summary judgment, presenting legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision, specifically that another candidate had a better management style and relevant housing experience. The court granted ROI's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Segarra failed to prove that ROI's stated reasons were pretextual or that discrimination was the actual motivating factor behind her termination.

Disability DiscriminationAge DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation ActAge Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)New York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie Case
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suleman v. State of New York Department of Taxation & Finance

Petitioner, a probationary excise tax investigator, was terminated by Respondent after investigations revealed numerous discrepancies and false statements in his personnel records, including multiple names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and employment history, as well as tax evasion. Petitioner challenged the termination, alleging discrimination based on Palestinian ancestry and bad faith. The Supreme Court dismissed his application. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that while petitioner established a prima facie case of discrimination, Respondent provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination, as he did not deny the extensive false statements made to various government agencies.

Probationary EmployeeEmployment TerminationCPLR Article 78Discrimination ClaimPalestinian AncestryFalse StatementsMisrepresentationPersonnel RecordsTax EvasionPrima Facie Case
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Ozone Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Mathial Bonhomme, a black man of Haitian ancestry, brought an employment discrimination suit under Title VII against Ozone Industries, Inc., Gilbert Austein, and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District No. 15. Bonhomme alleged racial and national origin discrimination due to his layoff and subsequent refusal to be rehired. The defendants argued that the refusal to rehire was based on their belief that Bonhomme was involved in a watch theft. Although the court found that Bonhomme established a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendants successfully articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their actions. Bonhomme failed to prove that the defendants' stated reason was a pretext for discrimination, leading to the dismissal of his case.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationLayoffRefusal to RehirePrima Facie CasePretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBurdine Standard
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

Cooney v. Consolidated Edison

Plaintiff Joseph Cooney, proceeding pro se, brought an action against his employer, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed), alleging disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, discriminatory employment conditions, harassment, defamation, and retaliation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and state law. Con Ed moved for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. The court found that Cooney failed to establish he was 'disabled' under the ADA and that Con Ed provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its disciplinary actions. Additionally, the court denied Cooney's motion for additional discovery, dismissed the retaliation claims for lack of causation, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law defamation claim, dismissing it without prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantChronic Fatigue SyndromeAmericans with Disabilities ActFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56McDonnell Douglas FrameworkSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2011

Nolley v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp.

Plaintiff James Nolley sued Swiss Re America Holding Corporation for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Nolley alleged discrimination regarding promotion, exclusion from meetings, assignment of lesser work, issuance of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), and termination of employment. The court dismissed the Title VII claims as untimely. For the remaining discrimination claims, the court found Swiss Re provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, citing concerns over Nolley's aggressive demeanor and poor performance. Nolley failed to demonstrate these reasons were pretextual or that discrimination was a motivating factor. The court also granted summary judgment to Swiss Re on Nolley's retaliation claim, finding no direct evidence of retaliatory motive and that intervening events defeated the inference of causation.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawPerformance Improvement PlanAdverse Employment ActionPretext
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chuang v. T.W. Wang Inc.

Plaintiffs Gary Ko Sheng Chuang, Yih-Her Lee, Tzu-Kuang Liu, and Chung Yung Wang, former employees of The World Journal newspaper, filed an age discrimination lawsuit under federal and New York state/city laws, alleging unlawful dismissal. Defendant World Journal moved for summary judgment on all claims. Senior District Judge Glasser granted the defendant's motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or to demonstrate that the defendant's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination were pretextual. Specifically, the court found Plaintiff Chuang voluntarily resigned, Plaintiff Lee's termination was due to a legitimate reduction-in-force, and Plaintiffs Liu and Wang were dismissed for misconduct and lack of cooperation during an investigation. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted for all plaintiffs.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentADEANYSHRLDisparate TreatmentPretextPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting FrameworkReduction in Workforce
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nurse v. Lutheran Medical Center

Plaintiff Lorna Nurse, a Black Barbadian former Nurse Practitioner at Lutheran Medical Center (LMC), sued LMC alleging racial and national origin discrimination in her termination, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LMC moved for summary judgment. Nurse claimed disparate treatment, discriminatory comments by her supervisor Ms. Schwimer, and LMC's failure to follow progressive discipline. The court found that Nurse failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as she did not show her termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, nor were her identified comparators similarly situated. The court also found LMC provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination based on a pattern of unprofessional conduct, and Nurse failed to show this reason was a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, LMC's motion for summary judgment was granted.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentTerminationDisparate TreatmentNurse PractitionerEmployee MisconductProgressive Discipline
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estepa v. Shad

Plaintiff Julio Estepa, a white male born in Puerto Rico, sued John S.R. Shad, Chairman of the SEC, for age and national origin discrimination after being denied a promotion to Support Services Supervisor (SSS) in the SEC's New York Regional Office. Estepa, 64, applied for the SSS position in 1982 but Alfred White, 58, was selected. The Court found that the defendant articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for White's promotion, including his supervisory experience and knowledge of File Room operations, and Estepa failed to prove these reasons were pretextual. Estepa also failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination as the age difference with White was not 'substantially younger.' Additionally, Estepa's motion to amend the complaint to include Fifth Amendment due process claims was denied as federal employment discrimination claims have exclusive judicial remedies.

Age DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActADEAEmployment DiscriminationNon-promotionPretextPrima Facie CaseFifth AmendmentDue Process
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 5,836 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