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

Suffolk County Community College v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Suffolk County Community College to review a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Division had previously found the college guilty of unlawful racially discriminatory practices and retaliation against an employee, awarding $50,000 in compensatory damages. The Division of Human Rights cross-petitioned to enforce this determination. Following a reversal and remittal by the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division reviewed the matter. The court denied the branch of the cross-petition seeking to enforce the $50,000 compensatory damages award, finding it excessive due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration, severity, or consequences of the complainant's mental anguish related to racial discrimination. The determination was otherwise confirmed, and the case was remitted to the New York State Division of Human Rights for a new award of compensatory damages not exceeding $5,000.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationCompensatory DamagesExcessive DamagesMental AnguishAdministrative Law ReviewHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewRemittalSufficiency of Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03395 [217 AD3d 1237]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2023

Matter of Cagino v. New York State Div. of Human Rights

Petitioner Paul F. Cagino appealed the dismissal of his application to review a New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) determination. SDHR found no probable cause regarding Cagino's claim that the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) engaged in retaliatory employment practices. Cagino, a former OAG employee, alleged that OAG's statements in court papers during a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) proceeding constituted adverse employment action. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, ruling that OAG's statements were legitimate defensive measures in litigation, not unlawful retaliation. The court concluded that SDHR's no probable cause finding was rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

RetaliationDiscriminationFreedom of Information Law (FOIL)Adverse Employment ActionHuman Rights LawProbable CauseAppellate ReviewDefensive LitigationPublic Officers LawEmployment Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Universal Packaging Corp. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Tina Del Regno filed a sexual harassment complaint against Universal Packaging Corporation (UPC) with the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) in 1994, and a retaliation claim with the EEOC in 1997. SDHR found probable cause on the 1994 complaint, but Del Regno requested dismissal for administrative convenience to pursue all claims in federal court, which SDHR granted in July 1998. Petitioners, likely UPC, sought judicial review under Executive Law § 298 to annul SDHR's dismissal, arguing it was arbitrary and seeking a remand for a public hearing. The court analyzed relevant legal precedents and legislative amendments to Executive Law § 297 (9), particularly concerning the annulment of the election of remedies. Concluding that Del Regno's plan to consolidate her state and federal claims in one forum justified the administrative convenience dismissal, the court dismissed the petition.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliation ClaimAdministrative ConvenienceJudicial ReviewHuman Rights LawElection of RemediesFederal Court JurisdictionState Law ClaimsExecutive LawEmployment Discrimination
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. State Division of Human Rights

This decision vacates a previous order and remands the matter to the State Division of Human Rights for a hearing. The initial court had dismissed a complaint, finding New York's Human Rights Law pre-empted by ERISA regarding pregnancy disability benefits. The Court of Appeals remitted for reconsideration in light of Shaw v Delta Airlines, which clarified that pre-emption only applies when a state law prohibits practices lawful under federal law. The court noted that the discrimination, alleged in 1977, predated the federal prohibition against pregnancy discrimination (effective April 29, 1979). However, ERISA exempts plans maintained solely for complying with disability insurance laws. The record is unclear if petitioner's plan is a separate plan (where NY Human Rights Law would apply) or part of a larger employee benefit plan (where ERISA would control). Therefore, the case is remanded for a determination on this specific factual issue only.

ERISA Pre-emptionHuman Rights LawPregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawState Law Pre-emptionFederal Law ConflictRemittiturEmployee Benefit PlansJudicial RemandWorkers' Compensation Law Art 9
References
3
Case No. No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Clifton Park Apartments v. New York State Division of Human Rights

CityVision, a non-profit, filed a discrimination complaint against Pine Ridge Apartments with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). After DHR dismissed the initial complaint, Pine Ridge's attorney sent a letter to CityVision and employee Leigh Renner threatening litigation for "false, fraudulent and libelous" allegations. In response, CityVision and Renner filed a retaliation complaint, which DHR upheld, finding the letter to be an adverse action. The Appellate Division annulled DHR's determination, concluding that the letter did not constitute adverse action and DHR improperly shifted the burden regarding protected activity. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that a threat of litigation can indeed constitute adverse action under the Human Rights Law, supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court remitted the matter to DHR for proper analysis of the "protected activity" element, as DHR had improperly shifted the burden of proof.

Retaliation claimHuman Rights LawAdverse actionThreat of litigationFamilial status discriminationBurden of proofProtected activityHousing discriminationAppellate reviewAdministrative law
References
18
Case No. 93 Civ. 7146(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2002

NEW YORK STATE NAT. ORG. FOR WOMEN v. Pataki

This case addresses several post-appeal motions in a class-action lawsuit. Plaintiffs sought curative notice relief related to a permanent injunction against the New York State Division of Human Rights' 1995 Intake Rules. Defendants cross-moved to dismiss the entire action, arguing a prior Second Circuit ruling vacated all relief. Plaintiff Class-Member Abby Oshinsky moved to reinstate her discrimination claims, and the New York City Housing Authority moved to intervene. The court denied defendants' cross-motion, affirming the injunction against the 1995 Intake Rules was not appealed and thus survived. However, plaintiffs' motion for curative notice relief and Oshinsky's motion were denied, with the latter rendering the NYCHA's intervention motion moot.

Due ProcessClass ActionPermanent InjunctionAdministrative PracticesDivision of Human RightsProcedural Due ProcessEqual ProtectionDiscrimination ClaimsJudicial ReviewAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1991

New York City Transit Authority v. State Division of Human Rights

This case involves an appeal concerning the measurement of damages for a complainant's mental anguish due to sex discrimination by the New York City Transit Authority. The complainant, a bus driver, experienced multiple instances of discrimination related to her pregnancy, including denial of restricted duty and forced unpaid leave, which led to significant emotional distress. While the Administrative Law Judge and the State Commissioner of Human Rights awarded $450,000 for mental anguish, the Appellate Division reduced this award to a maximum of $75,000. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that it failed to apply the proper standard of review by not giving deference to the Commissioner's assessment and by inadequately comparing the award to similar cases. The matter was remitted to the Appellate Division for reconsideration.

Sex DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationMental Anguish DamagesCompensatory DamagesAppellate ReviewHuman Rights LawStandard of ReviewMiscarriageRetaliationRestricted Duty
References
19
Case No. 02-CV-6666L
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Citibank v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Citibank initiated a proceeding to overturn an order from the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights. This order had found Citibank guilty of age discrimination against its employee, Catherine S. Hanna, and awarded her compensatory damages and back pay. Hanna was dismissed from Citibank after 36 years of employment for alleged insubordination, which she contested, citing a conflict with personal appointments. The court reviewed the evidence, finding that the Commissioner's determination of age discrimination lacked substantial evidentiary support. The court concluded that Hanna failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and Citibank's stated reason for termination was not a mere pretext for discriminatory actions, thus granting Citibank's petition.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationInsubordinationPrima Facie CasePretextSubstantial EvidenceJudicial ReviewHuman Rights LawExecutive LawEmployer-Employee Dispute
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 31,824 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