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

Metz v. County of Suffolk

Petitioner Metz challenged the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR)'s determination of no probable cause regarding her disability discrimination complaint against the County of Suffolk, Department of Labor. Metz, a clerk/typist, alleged the County failed to accommodate her disability by transferring her to a worksite that worsened her medical condition, despite other alleged available positions. She contended that the NYSDHR's dismissal was arbitrary and capricious, partly due to insufficient time to present evidence. The court, applying the 'arbitrary and capricious or lacking a rational basis' standard, found that Metz did not meet her burden. The court concluded that her claim was about commute length, not essential job functions, and lacked verified evidence, ultimately denying her application.

Disability discriminationReasonable accommodationHuman rights lawProbable causeAdministrative reviewArbitrary and capriciousSuffolk CountyClerk/typistEmployment lawWorksite transfer
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03505 [184 AD3d 813]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2020

Klaper v. Cypress Hills Cemetery

Jozef Klaper, the plaintiff, appealed an order dismissing his complaint against Cypress Hills Cemetery for employment discrimination and hostile work environment based on age and national origin, in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. Klaper's employment was terminated after he failed to comply with a "final chance stipulation" to return to work following an alcohol treatment program. Prior to this action, Klaper had filed a complaint with the NYSDHR, which was dismissed on the merits, and a federal action where state and city claims were dismissed without prejudice. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the current action, ruling that it was barred by the doctrines of election of remedies and collateral estoppel, as the claims were based on the same alleged discriminatory conduct previously asserted with the NYSDHR.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentAge DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationNew York City Human Rights LawElection of RemediesCollateral EstoppelAppellate DivisionTermination of EmploymentFinal Chance Stipulation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Massie v. IKON Office Solutions, Inc.

Plaintiff Massie alleged religious discrimination, disparate treatment, and retaliatory termination by his supervisor, John Watkins, while employed at IKON Office Solutions, Inc. The plaintiff claimed Watkins engaged in proselytization, imposed unfair performance demands, and terminated his employment for insubordination after an internal complaint. Despite filing charges with the NYSDHR and EEOC, and later a lawsuit, the defendant IKON moved for summary judgment. The court granted IKON's motion, concluding that Massie failed to establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination, primarily due to not demonstrating that IKON had proper notice of Watkins' actions or that he sought accommodation. The court also disregarded new allegations introduced by the plaintiff in his opposition to the summary judgment motion.

religious discriminationemployment discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Actretaliationsummary judgmentdisparate treatmentinsubordinationworkplace misconductpro se litigation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drexel v. Ferronics Inc.

Daniel Drexel, the plaintiff, filed a complaint alleging employment discrimination based on age and disability, citing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). He had previously filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR), which found 'probable cause,' and subsequently received a Right-to-Sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in October 2008. The defendant moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Drexel failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court, presided over by District Judge David G. Larimer, denied the defendant's motion, concluding that Drexel's claims were 'reasonably related' to those filed with the administrative agencies, thereby satisfying the exhaustion requirement.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to DismissEEOCNYSDHRReasonably Related DoctrinePro Se LitigantFederal Civil Procedure
References
7
Case No. No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2000

Gallagher v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Michael Gallagher, a member of IBEW Local 43, sued the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), its President J.J. Barry, IBEW Local 43, and several electrical contractors, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation. He claimed violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Executive Law § 296. The International defendants (IBEW and J.J. Barry) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name them in his administrative charges with the EEOC and NYSDHR, and that the claims were time-barred. The court granted the motion, finding that the "identity of interest" exception did not apply, thereby barring the ADEA claim against the International defendants. Additionally, the court ruled that Gallagher's state law claims were also time-barred due to failure to file within the statutory limits against the International defendants.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionsCollective BargainingHiring HallEEOCNYSDHRStatute of LimitationsJudgment on the PleadingsIdentity of Interest
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Joseph Anderson, Jr., an African-American former employee of Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (ABI), sued ABI alleging discriminatory discharge based on race in violation of Title VII. Anderson was terminated in November 1985 for falsifying call and expense reports and for contacting clients during a suspension, violating company policy. After exhausting administrative remedies with the NYSDHR and EEOC, Anderson filed this complaint. ABI moved for summary judgment, asserting the EEOC lacked authority to issue a right-to-sue letter, the claim was barred by laches, and Anderson failed to establish a discrimination claim. The court ruled that the EEOC had authority and rejected the laches defense. However, the court granted ABI's motion for summary judgment, finding that while Anderson established a prima facie case of discrimination, he failed to demonstrate that ABI's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Race DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationLaches DefenseEEOC AuthorityAdministrative ExhaustionFalsification of DocumentsPretextPrima Facie Case
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ballard v. CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Plaintiff Pamela Ballard sued The Children’s Aid Society (CAS), Jacqueline Francis, and Stephen Douglas, alleging retaliation under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Ballard claimed various retaliatory actions by defendants, including salary issues, office assignments, performance evaluations, job reclassification, and ultimate termination, following her complaints to the NYSDHR. The court evaluated the claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for Title VII and NYSHRL, and a more liberal standard for NYCHRL. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for their actions, which Ballard failed to sufficiently refute with admissible evidence. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all of Ballard's retaliation claims, including those against the individual defendants, due to lack of a causal link or insufficient evidence of pretext.

Retaliation ClaimTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)Summary JudgmentEmployment LawBurden-Shifting FrameworkPrima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionCausal Connection
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. New York State Department of Human Rights

Plaintiff John A. Cooper, a former employee of the New York State Department of Human Rights (NYSDHR), brought an action alleging employment discrimination based on age, race, and disability under Title VII, ADEA, ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and New York State law. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court partially granted on September 18, 1997, regarding ADEA claims and Title VII claims against individual defendants. After an initial dispute over the timeliness of the action was resolved, the court addressed the remaining aspects of the defendants' motion. The court found that Cooper failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, concluding that he did not demonstrate satisfactory job performance or suffer an adverse employment action under the relevant statutes, despite his lateral transfer. The court also found no evidence to infer discrimination. Consequently, all of the plaintiff's remaining claims were dismissed, and judgment was entered for the defendants.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRace DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionLateral TransferJob PerformanceTitle VII
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sworn v. Western New York Children's Psychiatric Center

Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, commenced an action alleging employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin under Title VII, and disability under the ADA, against his former employer, Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center. The plaintiff had a history of attendance issues and was terminated for unsatisfactory performance after prior reinstatements. Prior to this federal action, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR) and the EEOC alleging disability discrimination, which was found to have no probable cause. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the ADA claim with prejudice due to Eleventh Amendment immunity for monetary damages under Title I and the inapplicability of Title II for employment discrimination claims. The Title VII claim was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff 60 days to amend his complaint to demonstrate administrative exhaustion for those specific allegations.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VII Civil Rights ActMotion to DismissEleventh Amendment ImmunityState EmployerAdministrative ExhaustionPro Se LitigantDisability DiscriminationExcessive Absenteeism
References
37
Showing 1-9 of 9 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