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
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Case No. 98-CV-1117 (LEK/RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1998

Galusha v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. ENVIRON. CONSERV.

Plaintiffs, individuals with physical disabilities, sued the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Adirondack Park Agency, and the State of New York, alleging that their policies in managing the Adirondack Park unfairly limit their access to certain areas in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They sought a preliminary injunction to allow them to use motorized vehicles on restricted trails. The Court found that the defendants' policy had a disparate impact on disabled persons and that allowing limited, necessary motorized access on roads already used by non-disabled personnel would not fundamentally alter the Park program. Therefore, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, mandating access to specific roads for persons with certified mobility impairment disabilities.

Americans with Disabilities ActADAAdirondack ParkEnvironmental ConservationMotorized Vehicle AccessMobility ImpairmentPreliminary InjunctionDisparate ImpactPublic AccommodationsState Government Action
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schapiro v. New York City Department of Health

Plaintiff David B. Schapiro sued his former employers, the City of New York and its agency, the New York City Department of Health, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a common law negligence claim. Schapiro claimed he developed respiratory problems from poor workplace conditions between 1989 and 1994, arguing the City failed to provide reasonable accommodation. The City moved for summary judgment, contending Schapiro was not disabled under the ADA, his claims were time-barred, and he failed to mitigate damages, also asserting his negligence claim was preempted by New York's Worker's Compensation Law. The court granted the City's motion, ruling that several of Schapiro's claims were time-barred and that he failed to establish a prima facie case of disability under the ADA as his impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity like breathing or working. Furthermore, the court found Schapiro's negligence claim was exclusively covered by the New York Worker's Compensation Law.

Disability DiscriminationADASummary JudgmentRespiratory ProblemsWorkplace ConditionsReasonable AccommodationTime BarEEOCNegligence ClaimWorker's Compensation Law
References
17
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Julian v. New York City Transit Authority

Vera Julian, a pro se plaintiff, sued the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS) after her employment termination and the denial of disability benefits. Julian sustained a back injury on the job in 1988, leading to a finding of permanent disability. Following bureaucratic errors regarding her termination and disability applications, she filed an Article 78 proceeding in state court, which resulted in a stipulation allowing her to reapply for benefits. However, her subsequent applications were denied. In this federal action, Julian alleged employment discrimination (race, gender, age, marital status, disability) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and ADEA, as well as conspiracy, retaliation, and due process violations. The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that Julian failed to exhaust administrative remedies for discrimination claims, that her allegations were conclusory, and that state law provided adequate due process. The court also dismissed her state law claims, suggesting that her remedy lies in state court.

Employment DiscriminationDisability BenefitsTermination of EmploymentRes JudicataDue ProcessCivil Rights ActAge Discrimination in Employment ActRehabilitation ActWorkers' CompensationSocial Security Disability
References
53
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parisi v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York

Richard Parisi, a former route deliveryman for Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., filed a lawsuit alleging employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL). Parisi claimed his 1995 on-the-job knee injury, for which he received Workers' Compensation, left him permanently disabled from his previous role but qualified for other positions within the company. He alleged Coca-Cola failed to provide reasonable accommodation by not reassigning him. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Parisi failed to establish a prima facie case under the ADA, that his claims were barred by the New York State Workers’ Compensation Statute, and by a mandatory arbitration clause. The Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that Parisi failed to adequately plead a 'disability' within the meaning of the ADA, as his impairment only disqualified him from a narrow range of jobs. Furthermore, the Court determined that the employer had no general duty to transfer a disabled employee to a different position without a contractual right or established policy for such transfers, thus failing the 'reasonable accommodation' element of his claim.

Americans with Disabilities ActEmployment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeReasonable AccommodationDisability DefinitionMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Workers' Compensation StatuteOtherwise Qualified IndividualMajor Life Activity
References
34
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02301 [182 AD3d 821]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Matter of Community, Work, & Independence, Inc. v. New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Community, Work, and Independence, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge a determination affirming the objection to its proposed discharge of M.D., an individual with developmental disabilities, from day habilitation services. M.D.'s parents objected to the discharge, and an administrative hearing sustained their objection, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding that the burden of proof was appropriately placed on the service provider. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that discharging M.D. was not reasonable, considering his needs, the lack of suitable alternative programs, and despite the petitioner's financial concerns. The court suggested that financial issues for service providers should be addressed by seeking increased funding rather than by discharging individuals.

Developmental DisabilityHCBS WaiverDischarge ServicesAdministrative HearingBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceFinancial ConcernsService ProviderMedicaid FundingAutism Spectrum
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buckley v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Dan Buckley, a former management employee, sued Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Executive Law § 296, alleging discrimination based on his disability as a rehabilitated alcohol/substance abuser and termination due to his inability to provide a urine sample for drug testing. The court had previously dismissed his complaint but allowed him to replead, finding he adequately alleged disability but not discrimination based on it. In his amended complaint, Buckley conceded his bladder condition, which prevented him from urinating on command, was not an ADA disability but argued Con Edison's drug testing procedures were unreasonable. The court granted Con Edison's motion to dismiss, concluding that failure to accommodate a non-disability does not constitute an ADA violation, and Buckley failed to allege that his actual disability (alcohol/substance abuse) was not reasonably accommodated.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationDrug TestingReasonable AccommodationAlcohol AbuseSubstance AbuseTermination of EmploymentMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12New York State Executive Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dipol v. New York City Transit Authority

Plaintiff Robert DiPol, an employee of the NYCTA, sued the New York City Transit Authority under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York state law for discrimination. DiPol, a diabetic for 40 years, was placed on 'no-work' status and restricted duty by the NYCTA after they learned of his condition in 1993, despite his satisfactory job performance. The court determined that the NYCTA 'regarded' DiPol as disabled, noting the severe restrictions imposed. The defendant failed to prove DiPol posed a direct threat or that the accommodations were reasonable. The court granted Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, finding disability discrimination and leaving damages as the sole remaining issue.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Disability DiscriminationEmployment LawDiabetic ConditionMedical RestrictionsSummary Judgment MotionNew York City Transit Authority (NYCTA)"Regarded As" DisabilityPrima Facie CaseDirect Threat Defense
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 14,599 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