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. 94 Civ. 2336
Regular Panel Decision

Mohamed v. Marriott International, Inc.

Ahmed Mohamed, a profoundly deaf individual, sued Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Corporation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law for wrongful discharge. Marriott moved for summary judgment, arguing Mohamed should be judicially estopped from asserting an ADA claim because he had previously applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (SSDI), stating he was unable to work. The court denied Marriott's motion. It ruled that judicial estoppel was inappropriate given the differing legal standards between ADA and SSDI, the nature of SSDI administrative determinations (paper application for a listed disability), and the policy goals of the ADA which encourage disabled individuals to seek employment. The court found ample evidence that Mohamed was able to perform the essential functions of his job.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Judicial EstoppelSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationSocial Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)New York State Human Rights LawEmployment LawQualified Individual with a DisabilityReasonable AccommodationDeafness
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marriott In-Flite Services, A Division of Marriott Corp. v. Local 504, Air Transport Division, Transport Workers of America

Marriott In-Flite Services sued Local 504 under the Labor Management Relations Act, alleging the union engaged in an unlawful secondary boycott by picketing KLM facilities to force Marriott to cease doing business with KLM. Marriott provided in-flight meals to KLM, which was embroiled in a labor dispute with Local 504 over the closure of KLM's commissary. Local 504 picketed the commissary, which Marriott had leased, believing Marriott was performing 'struck work' and was an 'ally' of KLM, not a neutral third party. The court found that Marriott was not an innocent bystander but an ally of KLM, as it undertook work previously done by striking employees. Therefore, Local 504's actions did not constitute an unfair labor practice, and the court dismissed Marriott's damages claim, entering judgment in favor of the defendant union.

Labor Management Relations ActSecondary BoycottUnfair Labor PracticeAlly DoctrinePrimary PicketingUnion DisputeStruck WorkLabor LawLMRAAirport Services
References
4
Case No. ADJ8377055
Regular
Dec 13, 2012

MARIA PEREZ vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

This case involves a petition for removal filed by a party in **Maria Perez v. Marriott International; Marriott Claims Services**. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued an order dismissing this petition. The dismissal is due to the petitioner's withdrawal of their request for removal. Therefore, the Board has formally closed the matter regarding the petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantMarriott InternationalMarriott Claims ServicesADJ8377055San Jose District OfficeDecision November 13 2012
References
0
Case No. ADJ3885934 (ANA 0349373)
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

SAUL GONZALEZ vs. REMEDY TEMP/CIGA FOR RELIANCE IN LIQUIDATION, MARRIOTT CORPORATION/MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration, reversing a prior decision that found no jurisdiction to hear CIGA's claim for reimbursement. The WCAB determined it retains supplemental jurisdiction over disputes between defendants, like CIGA and Marriott, even after the injured worker's case was dismissed for lack of prosecution. This decision recognizes that the dismissal was intended to address the applicant's failure to prosecute, not to extinguish CIGA's independent right to seek reimbursement from Marriott. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on CIGA's reimbursement claim.

CIGAReimbursementJurisdictionDismissalReconsiderationSupplemental JurisdictionContributionSpecial EmploymentLack of ProsecutionStipulation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marriott In-Flite Services v. Local 504, Air Transport Division

Marriott sued Transport Workers of America Local 504 for damages, alleging secondary picketing in violation of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The dispute arose after KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, whose employees were members of the defendant union, closed its commissary and contracted with Marriott for food service, leading to a strike and alleged property destruction by the union. The union moved for summary judgment, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it was covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), not the LMRA. The court found that because 86% of the union's members were RLA employees and the primary dispute was with an RLA employer, the union did not fall under the LMRA's definition of a 'labor organization'. Consequently, the court granted the union's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Marriott's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Secondary PicketingSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionRailway Labor ActLabor Management Relations ActLabor DisputeUnion ActivitiesRLA EmployeesLMRA DefinitionStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McCloskey v. Marriott Corp.

Claimant sustained two back injuries, one in 1987 while employed by Marriott Corporation and another in 1991 while working for South Hills Deli, both leading to permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board reopened the 1987 case and determined that the claimant's disability was 25% causally related to the 1987 accident and 75% to the 1991 accident. Marriott Corporation and its workers' compensation carrier appealed this apportionment decision, arguing that apportionment was unwarranted because the claimant had returned to work, engaged in recreational activities, and denied prior disability in a 1991 personal injury action. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that apportionment is a factual issue for the Board to determine and found that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including medical reports. This decision upheld the Board's finding of causal relationship and the 25%/75% apportionment despite the claimant's earlier non-disclosure.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentWork-Related AccidentCausal RelationshipPrior InjuryMedical ReportSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Godineaux v. Laguardia Airport Marriott Hotel

Plaintiff Edwin Godineaux, a former employee of the LaGuardia Marriott Hotel, sued the hotel and Marriott Int’l, Inc. for creating a hostile work environment due to discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, marital status, and race, as well as retaliation for complaining about discrimination. He alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker and claimed his subsequent disciplinary actions and termination were pretextual and retaliatory. The court, applying Title VII standards to the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, found that the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile work environment, and that the employer took appropriate remedial action. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between his protected activity and termination, and that the defendants provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his disciplinary actions and termination, which the plaintiff failed to prove were pretextual. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was closed.

Hostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationNYSHRL ClaimsNYCHRL ClaimsTitle VII StandardsObjective Hostile EnvironmentSubjective Hostile Environment
References
19
Case No. ADJ7236324
Regular
Oct 23, 2015

MARIA VILCHIS vs. NORWALK MARRIOTT, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Maria Vilchis's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the applicant's failure to comply with WCAB Rule 10842(b), which mandates specific citations to the record to support evidentiary statements. The Board emphasized that the applicant cannot shift the burden of searching the record to the Appeals Board. This rule is consistent with appellate court procedures requiring proper record citation to avoid waiver of points.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10842(b)Specific CitationsRecord ReferencesEvidentiary StatementsWaiverBurden of ProofAdministrative Law Judge ReportAppellate RulesDismissal Order
References
5
Case No. ADJ8119563
Regular
Dec 05, 2016

MARTHA HERRERA vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Marriott International (Defendant) with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB denied the petition, finding that removal is an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board concluded that the applicant, Martha Herrera, did not demonstrate such harm, nor did she prove that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and denied the removal petition.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyWCJ ReportDeniedCase No. ADJ8119563Marriott International
References
0
Case No. ADJ9438375
Regular
Dec 15, 2016

MARIA FALCON vs. MARRIOTT HOTEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, amending the original decision. The Board found that the defendant's Marriott Hotel failed to provide the applicant with timely medical treatment within their Medical Provider Network (MPN). Applicant attempted to designate five different MPN physicians, but each refused to treat her. This repeated failure constitutes a denial of care, entitling the applicant to seek treatment outside the MPN at the defendant's expense.

Medical Provider NetworkMPN denialOut-of-network treatmentAccess standardsPrimary treating physicianPhysician availabilityLabor Code section 4600Labor Code section 4616Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Award
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 78 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