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

Yadav v. Brookhaven National Laboratory

The plaintiff, an individual of Indian origin, sued his employer, Brookhaven National Laboratory and Brookhaven Science Associates, alleging race and national origin discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He claimed he was denied promotion, faced unequal terms of employment, and harassment, including an office cubicle move and salary concerns. The defendants moved for summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove intentional racial or national origin discrimination, concluding there was no sufficient evidence for a rational juror to find in his favor. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationFailure to PromoteUnequal Terms of EmploymentSummary JudgmentJudgment as a Matter of LawPro Se PlaintiffFederal Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1997

Murphy v. ERA United Realty

The case concerns a plaintiff suing ERA United Realty, Petee Realty, Peter Orisses, and Nick Kavourgias for sex and national origin discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, finding factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's employment status as an independent contractor or employee. The appellate court modified this decision, granting summary judgment for defendant Nick Kavourgias on the first cause of action (Executive Law § 296 (1) (a)) due to his limited role. However, it affirmed the denial of dismissal for other claims, including those under the Administrative Code and for aiding and abetting under Executive Law § 296 (6), recognizing coemployee liability under these provisions when acting in concert with an employer.

Sex DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationIndependent Contractor vs EmployeeSummary JudgmentExecutive LawAdministrative CodeAiding and AbettingCoemployee Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stanford v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

The plaintiff, a provisional human rights specialist, sued her employer, the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and several individual defendants for employment discrimination. She alleged discrimination based on national origin and retaliation after her termination, which followed a history of insubordination and conflict with her supervisor. The court found no evidence to support either the national origin discrimination claim, noting similar racial backgrounds among parties, or the retaliation claim, as the Commission had encouraged employees to challenge the civil service examination in question. The decision concluded that the plaintiff's termination stemmed from an irreconcilable personal antagonism with her supervisor rather than any discriminatory reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, affirming that federal courts should not intervene in personnel decisions based on non-discriminatory grounds.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimInsubordinationProvisional Employee TerminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActEEOC ComplaintSupervisor-Employee ConflictFederal District Court CaseWorkplace Conduct
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sherman v. National Grid

Plaintiff Sherry A. Sherman sued National Grid for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act. She alleged gender discrimination, retaliation, and unequal pay due to incidents like delayed promotion, inappropriate comments, a physical demands test, and denial of 'storm work.' National Grid moved for summary judgment, arguing many claims were time-barred and others lacked a prima facie case. The court granted summary judgment for National Grid, finding most allegations time-barred and timely claims insufficient to establish discrimination or retaliation. Consequently, the plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIEqual Pay ActSummary JudgmentGender DiscriminationRetaliationAdverse Employment ActionTimeliness of ClaimsPrima Facie CaseContinuing Violation Doctrine
References
25
Case No. 11 Misc 3d 739
Regular Panel Decision

Farrugia v. North Shore University Hospital

Plaintiff Thomas Farrugia, a white male lab technologist at North Shore University Hospital, filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and national origin discrimination under New York State and New York City Human Rights laws. The plaintiff asserted claims of sexual harassment by a female coworker and discrimination based on his national origin. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing the gender discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation claims. However, the sexual harassment claims were allowed to proceed, with evidence limited to conduct occurring from January 2000 onward under the continuing discrimination doctrine.

sexual harassmentnational origin discriminationgender discriminationhostile work environmentretaliationsummary judgmentNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Lawcontinuing violation doctrineemployment discrimination
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barella v. Village of Freeport

Plaintiff Christopher Barella sued the Village of Freeport and former Mayor Andrew Hardwick for racial and national origin discrimination, alleging he was passed over for Chief of Police due to his race and national origin. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court denied the Village’s motion to dismiss NYSHRL claims. The Court also found triable issues of fact regarding Barella's race discrimination claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and NYSHRL, including his qualifications, circumstances inferring discrimination, and pretext in the defendants' reasons. However, summary judgment was granted for defendants on the national origin discrimination claims.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983NYSHRLMunicipal LiabilityMonell Claim
References
102
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Orisakwe v. Marriott Retirement Communities, Inc.

Plaintiff Niecy Orisakwe sued Defendant Marriott Senior Living Services, Inc. d/b/a Brighton Gardens, alleging racial and national origin discrimination after her employment was terminated. Defendant claimed she was discharged for patient neglect, while Plaintiff asserted the real reason was her Nigerian national origin. The Court limited its review to national origin discrimination as racial discrimination was not raised in her EEOC charge. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the after-acquired evidence doctrine due to Plaintiff's omission of previous employers and a prior termination for patient neglect on her application. The Court determined that even if discrimination occurred, Plaintiff suffered no compensable injury because Defendant would not have hired or would have fired her had the misrepresentations been known. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of the Defendant.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentAfter-Acquired Evidence DoctrineApplication FraudEmployee MisconductPatient NeglectTitle VIIWrongful Termination
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Damron v. Yellow Freight System, Inc.

Leroy Damron sued Yellow Freight System, Inc. for employment discrimination under the ADEA and Title VII, alleging age and national origin discrimination, alongside retaliation, after being terminated as a casual truck driver. Damron's national origin claim was based on his "tax protester" activities, specifically his attempt to revoke his Social Security number, arguing foreign aliens were preferred. The court granted summary judgment for Yellow Freight, dismissing Damron's failure-to-hire/promote claims as time-barred due to late EEOC filing and finding no basis for equitable doctrines. It further ruled that national origin discrimination does not encompass claims solely based on U.S. citizenship or the legally required use of Social Security numbers. Finally, Damron's race and age discrimination claims lacked evidence, and his retaliation claim failed as the adverse employment action predated his protected activities, leading to the dismissal of his entire complaint with prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationAge Discrimination in Employment ActTitle VII Civil Rights ActNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTax ProtesterSocial Security Number DisputeCasual Truck DriverTime-Barred Claims
References
105
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ghose v. Century 21, Inc.

Prithibee Ghose, of Bangladeshi origin, sued Century 21, Inc. and James Betesh for national origin and racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, following his termination as a security guard in 1996. Century 21 moved for summary judgment, arguing Ghose failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and that some claims were precluded by not being filed with the EEOC. The Court granted summary judgment, finding that Ghose failed to provide sufficient evidence to infer discrimination, and that additional claims like hostile work environment and retaliation were barred because they were not "reasonably related" to the original EEOC complaint. The court also noted that Section 1981 does not prohibit discrimination based on national origin.

National Origin DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEEOC PreclusionPrima Facie CaseHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimDisparate TreatmentEmployment Law
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gad-Tadros v. Bessemer Venture Partners

Nancy Gad-Tadros sued Bessemer Venture Partners, Deer Management Co., LLC, Corrine Pankovcin, J. Edmund Colloton, and Robert H. Buescher, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation based on her Coptic Christian religion, Egyptian/Arab national origin, and race. She claimed continuous harsh treatment, belittling remarks, denial of promotions and training opportunities, and constructive discharge. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted dismissal only for the plaintiff's national origin discrimination claim under Section 1981, as Section 1981 does not prohibit discrimination based on national origin. All other claims, including those under Title VII and New York's Human Rights Law, and the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were denied.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981New York Human Rights LawConstructive DischargeRace DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationMotion to Dismiss
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 7,982 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