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

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
Jun 28, 2000

Claim of Charlotten v. New York State Police

Claimant, a State Trooper since 1981, filed a claim in 1996 for mental injury due to 'multiple stressors on the job.' The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, concluding that the work-related stress did not constitute a compensable accident, as it was not greater than that usually occurring in a normal work environment. Claimant appealed, citing stressors such as investigating gruesome traffic fatalities, perceived harassment and racial discrimination by supervisors, job transfers, and an incident where other Troopers allegedly laughed at him. The Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence, finding no proof of discrimination or harassment, and concluding that the other incidents were typical for a State Trooper. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board was affirmed.

Mental injuryWork-related stressState TrooperWorkers' Compensation BoardCompensable accidentFactual issueSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewEmployment conditionsJob stressors
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2004

School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz

Plaintiffs School of Visual Arts (SVA) and Laurie Pearlberg sued former employee Diane Kuprewicz for alleged unlawful harassment. The harassment included posting false job listings online and sending a large volume of unsolicited pornographic emails to Pearlberg's work address and SVA's computer system. The plaintiffs brought six causes of action, including claims under the Lanham Act, for defamation, trade libel, violation of Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, trespass to chattels, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The court denied Kuprewicz's motion to dismiss the trespass to chattels claim, finding sufficient allegations of harm to SVA's computer systems. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss all other claims, ruling that the job postings were not defamatory, the Lanham Act claims lacked commercial use, and the Civil Rights Law and intentional interference claims did not meet their statutory elements.

HarassmentFalse Job PostingsTrespass to ChattelsDefamation ClaimsLanham Act ClaimsCivil Rights Law ViolationIntentional InterferenceCyber HarassmentMotion to DismissInternet Law
References
41
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. Docket No. 16
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 1998

Kent-Chojnicki v. Runyon

Plaintiffs, employees of the United States Postal Service (USPS) suffering from work-related permanent partial disabilities, filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. They contended that "Rehabilitation Job Offers" imposed upon their return to work were incompatible with their medical restrictions, grade/level, or commuting area, leading to job-related hardships or termination. The plaintiffs sought class certification to pursue these claims collectively. However, Magistrate Judge Scott recommended denying the motion, citing the necessity for individualized factual analyses for each class member's specific claims of harassment, job limitations, and required accommodations. District Judge Arcara concurred with this recommendation after a de novo review and oral arguments, thus denying the motion for class certification.

Class ActionDiscriminationRehabilitation Act of 1973Disability AccommodationEmployment LawFederal Civil ProcedureMotion for Class CertificationDenialWork-Related InjuryPermanent Partial Disability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galarza v. American Home Assurance Co.

Lorri Galarza sued her employer, American Home Assurance Company (AHAC), alleging workplace sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York Executive Law. Galarza claimed a co-worker, Marc Kaplan, sexually harassed her, and that she was fired after reporting the harassment to management. AHAC moved for summary judgment, asserting it had a reasonable complaint procedure and that Galarza's termination was due to poor job performance and insubordination, not retaliation. The court found that AHAC provided a reasonable avenue for complaint and made diligent efforts to investigate. Furthermore, the court concluded that Galarza failed to demonstrate that AHAC's stated reasons for her termination were merely a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, AHAC's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing Galarza's claims.

sexual harassmentretaliatory dischargeTitle VIIsummary judgmenthostile work environmentemployee conductperformance deficienciesdiscrimination claimsfederal civil procedure
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farren v. Shaw Environmental, Inc.

Plaintiff Ann Farren, administratrix of Kenneth Farren's estate, sued Defendant Shaw Environmental, Inc. for Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law violations, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. Kenneth Farren, a laborer's foreman, reported sexual harassment by a coworker, Albert Puma, including sexually explicit and threatening remarks. Defendant disciplined Puma with a one-week suspension, but Farren eventually left the job due to alleged escalating harassment and was later terminated during a workforce reduction. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence of gender-related harassment or disparate treatment, and no triable issue of fact regarding retaliation or constructive discharge. The court concluded that Puma's comments were expressions of animosity rather than sexual desire and that Farren's absenteeism was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination.

Gender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawConstructive DischargeExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDisparate Treatment
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Norvell

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying her from benefits for voluntarily leaving her job without good cause. She alleged harassment by her supervisor and requested an adjournment and a subpoena for a co-worker, Henry Manee, to testify. The Administrative Law Judge denied these requests and upheld the disqualification. The appellate court ruled that denying the claimant the right to present testimony regarding the alleged harassment constituted a denial of due process. The court concluded that such evidence could have impacted the final determination, thus reversing and remitting the case.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary QuittingGood CauseWorkplace HarassmentDue ProcessRight to Present TestimonyAdjournment RequestSubpoena DenialRemandAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ9271761 ADJ10135600
Regular
Mar 06, 2017

MICHELE DYE vs. CDCR PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant's claim for psychiatric injury, primarily arguing that actual employment events, not just misperceptions, were the predominant cause. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the judge's award, finding substantial evidence supported the applicant's claim. The Board found that documented workplace stressors, including contradictory orders and perceived harassment from supervisors, met the legal standard for "actual events of employment." Therefore, the Board upheld the award for temporary total disability, rejecting the defendant's arguments that the injury stemmed solely from misperceptions.

Psychiatric injuryActual events of employmentLabor Code section 3208.3Substantial evidenceWCJ credibilityIndustrial injuryRegistered nurseMisperceptions of job harassmentPQMECausation analysis
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,419 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