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

Maher v. ALLIANCE MORTGAGE BANKING CORP.

Plaintiff Jessica Maher commenced an employment discrimination action against Alliance Mortgage Banking Corporation and Raymond Agoglia, asserting claims of hostile work environment, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault under Title VII, NYSHRL, and New York common law. Defendant Agoglia moved for summary judgment on all claims. The Court granted summary judgment on Maher's Title VII claims, her NYSHRL retaliation claim, and her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. However, the Court denied summary judgment on her NYSHRL hostile work environment claim and her common law assault claim, allowing these to proceed. The decision analyzes the legal standards for summary judgment and specific elements of each claim, particularly concerning individual liability under NYSHRL and the statute of limitations for the assault claim.

Employment LawSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimIntentional TortsAssaultSummary Judgment MotionTitle VII ClaimsNYSHRL ClaimsSupervisor Liability
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohn v. KeySpan Corp.

Plaintiff Tracy Lee Cohn filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against KeySpan, LIPA, National Grid, and several individual supervisors, alleging disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NYSHRL. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted dismissal of the ADA claims as time-barred and the federal claims against individual defendants. However, the court denied dismissal of the Rehabilitation Act claim against the Utility defendants and the NYSHRL claim against specific individual supervisors (Barrueco, Bishop, L’Abbate, and Robertson). The NYSHRL claim against Buford, Gewert, and Doe defendants was dismissed without prejudice, allowing for amendment.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)Reasonable AccommodationMotion to DismissStatute of Limitations
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malena v. Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC

Fredda Malena, a former executive assistant, brought claims against Victoria's Secret entities and Ann O’Malley for pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under federal and New York state/city laws. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The court, led by District Judge J. Paul Oetken, granted the motions in part and denied them in part. O’Malley was found not liable for FMLA retaliation and direct NYSHRL discrimination but may be liable for NYSHRL retaliation, NYCHRL claims, and aiding and abetting. The Corporate Defendants' summary judgment motion was denied for discrimination and FMLA/NYSHRL/NYCHRL retaliation, but granted for aiding and abetting and the spread-of-hours claim.

Pregnancy DiscriminationFMLA RetaliationNYSHRL DiscriminationNYCHRL DiscriminationSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityIndividual LiabilityMixed MotiveReduction in ForceRetaliation Claims
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Figueroa v. RSquared NY, Inc.

The plaintiff, Marlen Figueroa, commenced an action against her former employer, RSquared NY, Inc., and individuals Altai Hirji and Ain “Doe”, alleging quid pro quo sexual harassment and sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The sex discrimination claim against RSquared NY, Title VII claims against the individual defendants, and the NYSHRL claim against Hirji were dismissed. However, the quid pro quo sexual harassment claims against RSquared NY under both Title VII and NYSHRL, and the NYSHRL claim against Ain “Doe” were allowed to proceed.

Sexual HarassmentSex DiscriminationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawQuid Pro Quo HarassmentMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Employer LiabilityIndividual LiabilityDe Facto Supervisor
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amaya v. Ballyshear LLC

Plaintiff Nelly Amaya filed an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Ballyshear LLC, Geller & Company LLC, and several individuals, alleging violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York Executive Law § 296. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion in part, dismissing Title VII claims for wrongful termination, retaliatory discharge, and constructive discharge, along with similar claims under § 1981 and NYSHRL. However, the Court denied the motion in part, allowing hostile work environment and workplace retaliation claims under NYSHRL, and hostile work environment and retaliatory workplace claims under § 1981 to proceed against all defendants, as well as the NYSHRL aiding and abetting claim.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981NYSHRLMotion to Dismiss
References
127
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2014

Vangas v. Montefiore Medical Center

Plaintiffs Mirelle and Alfredo Vangas sued Montefiore Medical Center (MMC), Elizabeth Burns, and Patricia Quinn. Plaintiffs alleged MMC violated COBRA by failing to send proper notification, and Mrs. Vangas claimed disability discrimination under NYSHRL and NYCHRL for failure to accommodate and NYLL violation for not timely notifying her of benefit cancellation. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on the NYSHRL failure to accommodate claim but denied it for the NYCHRL failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process (NYSHRL and NYCHRL), COBRA violation, and NYLL violation claims. The core disputes revolved around whether Mrs. Vangas's requests for leave or remote work were reasonable, whether an interactive process occurred, and if the COBRA and NYLL notices were properly and timely issued.

COBRADisability AccommodationNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawNew York Labor LawSummary Judgment MotionEmployment TerminationMedical LeaveInteractive ProcessReasonable Accommodation
References
46
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02369
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

IntegrateNYC, Inc. v. State of New York

Plaintiffs, including a youth-led organization, parents, and students, initiated a lawsuit against New York State and City actors, alleging that discriminatory admissions policies in public schools create a "racialized pipeline" that relegates Black and Latinx students to under-resourced and segregated schools. They claim these policies violate their state constitutional rights to a "sound basic education" and equal protection, as well as the New York State Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court dismissed the amended complaint as nonjusticiable. The Appellate Division modified this decision, finding the case justiciable, and denied the motions to dismiss for the Education Article and Equal Protection claims against both State and City, and partially denied dismissal for the NYSHRL claim against the City regarding denial of facilities. However, the NYSHRL claim against the State and the harassment portion of the NYSHRL claim against the City were affirmed for dismissal.

Education LawSchool SegregationEqual Protection ClauseState ConstitutionDiscriminatory AdmissionsStandardized TestingRacial BiasJusticiabilityMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2014

Kohutka v. Town of Hempstead

Plaintiff Theresa Kohutka sued the Town of Hempstead and several individual defendants for hostile work environment based on gender and political affiliation, and First Amendment retaliation. The claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the Nassau County Human Rights Law (NCHRL). Defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing Section 1983 claims against individual defendants, all NCHRL claims, and some NYSHRL claims. However, the Court denied summary judgment in part, finding triable issues of fact for Section 1983 First Amendment Retaliation claims against the Town, Section 1983 Equal Protection Hostile Work Environment claims against the Town and Milone, and NYSHRL claims against the Town, Milone, Allback, and Reeke.

First Amendment RetaliationEqual Protection ClauseHostile Work EnvironmentGender DiscriminationPolitical Affiliation DiscriminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 1983NYSHRL ClaimsMunicipal LiabilityMonell Doctrine
References
104
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lenart v. Coach, Inc.

Plaintiff Todd Lenart filed an action against his former employer, Coach Inc., alleging sex discrimination and hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Lenart moved to stay all proceedings and seal the docket, while Coach cross-moved to dismiss the complaint. The court denied Lenart's motion to stay and to seal. Regarding Coach's motion to dismiss, the court granted it in part and denied it in part. Specifically, Lenart’s Title VII and NYSHRL hostile work environment claims were dismissed, but his hostile work environment claim under the NYCHRL and his wrongful termination claims under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL survived the motion to dismiss, based on the standards clarified in Littlejohn v. City of N.Y.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawPleading StandardMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkLittlejohn StandardWrongful Termination
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cox v. Quick & Reilly, Inc.

Corrine Cox (Plaintiff) sued her former employers, Quick & Reilly, Inc. and FleetBoston Financial Corporation (Defendants), alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act (EPA), Title VII, and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) for sex-based discrimination and unlawful retaliation. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied the defendants' motion regarding the EPA claim, finding genuine issues of material fact concerning wage disparity and potential pretext for discrimination. However, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the Title VII and NYSHRL sex discrimination claims, as the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent. Finally, the court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the NYSHRL retaliation claim, concluding that a reasonable jury could find the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action or constructive discharge after filing an EEOC complaint.

Equal Pay ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSex DiscriminationWage DisparityRetaliationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseAffirmative DefensesDiscriminatory Intent
References
62
Showing 1-10 of 151 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