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

Kleehammer v. Monroe County

This case involves an employment sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Kleehammer against Monroe County and Sheriff O'Flynn. Kleehammer alleges hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The hostile environment claim stemmed from a single incident involving a female visitor and a male inmate, and subsequent lewd comments by co-workers. Kleehammer also claimed retaliation for complaining about the hostile environment and for alleged denial of "Z time" leave. The Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the hostile environment and Equal Protection/Fourth Amendment claims due to insufficient pleading and lack of employer liability for co-worker conduct, but allowed the retaliation claims (Third and Fourth causes of action) to proceed. The Court cautioned Plaintiff's counsel regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for good faith pleading.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimMotion to DismissJudgment on the PleadingsTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York Human Rights LawSection 1983 ClaimPleading StandardsBell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myers v. Secretary of Department of Treasury

The plaintiff, George Myers, an IRS employee, filed several EEO claims for age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. After being reassignment, he filed a federal complaint alleging discrimination under the ADEA and New York State Executive Law. The defendant, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, moved for judgment on the pleadings due to Myers's failure to properly serve the summons and complaint as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(i) and 4(m). While acknowledging attorney neglect, the Court, exercising its discretion and considering the expiration of the statute of limitations and the government's prior notice of the claims, denied the motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff an additional 30 days to effect proper service.

Age DiscriminationHarassmentRetaliationService of ProcessFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(i)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m)Motion to DismissStatute of LimitationsAttorney NeglectJudicial Discretion
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mitchell v. Mitchell

This case addresses whether prejudgment interest, awarded to a former wife from a former husband based on a disputed property settlement agreement, needs to be specifically pleaded as special damages under Rule 9.07 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals had ruled that such pleading was necessary. However, the Supreme Court of Tennessee concluded that the award of prejudgment interest was authorized under a prayer for general relief, considering it a necessary result of the failure to pay an obligation. The Court likened prejudgment interest to attorney's fees, which are discretionary and do not always require special pleading when the amount is certain or ascertainable. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed.

Prejudgment InterestSpecial DamagesGeneral DamagesDivorce DecreeProperty Settlement AgreementRules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewEquityDiscretionary AwardAttorney's Fees
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenhalgh v. Service Lloyds Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Greenhalgh filed a bad-faith insurance claim against his workers’ compensation carrier, Service Lloyds Insurance Company. A jury awarded Greenhalgh $128,000 in punitive damages, which exceeded the $100,000 he initially pleaded. The trial court granted Greenhalgh's request for a post-verdict amendment to conform his pleadings to the jury's award. However, the court of appeals reversed this decision, reducing the punitive damages to the pleaded amount. The Supreme Court of Texas, citing Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 63 and 66, held that a trial court must allow such an amendment unless the opposing party presents evidence of surprise or prejudice. As Service Lloyds failed to demonstrate either, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the full punitive damages awarded by the jury.

Trial AmendmentsPost-Verdict AmendmentsPleading DamagesJury AwardsPunitive DamagesActual DamagesAbuse of DiscretionPrejudice or SurpriseTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 63
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. St. Barnabas Nursing Home

Plaintiff Felicia Pickett Johnson, pro se, brought an action against her former employer, St. Barnabas Nursing Home, and co-worker, Ronald Granger, under Title VII, the ADA, and New York Human Rights Laws. Claims against Granger were dismissed without prejudice. St. Barnabas moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that Johnson's federal claims were time-barred because she failed to file within 90 days of receiving her EEOC right-to-sue letter. The court determined that Johnson's filing on February 7, 2008, was beyond the 90-day period, whether calculated from the presumptive receipt date of November 3, 2007, or her claimed receipt date of November 14, 2007 (or even November 8, 2008, based on a fax confirmation). Finding no extraordinary circumstances to warrant equitable tolling, the court dismissed the federal claims as time-barred and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Consequently, St. Barnabas's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Title VIIADAEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingRight-to-Sue LetterJudgment on the PleadingsSupplemental JurisdictionCivil Rights ActAmericans with Disabilities Act
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rolon v. Henneman

Plaintiff Dennis Rolon, a police officer, sued Sergeant Ari Moskowitz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process violations for false disciplinary charges and testimony that led to his suspension. The court considered Moskowitz's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that Rolon failed to state a claim for false testimony because Moskowitz's testimony was struck from the record and disbelieved. Additionally, Rolon's claims for malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence failed because his Fourth Amendment rights were not implicated, as he faced administrative rather than criminal charges, and suffered no deprivation of liberty, only property loss. Consequently, Moskowitz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Due processSection 1983False disciplinary chargesAbsolute immunityQualified immunityMalicious prosecutionFabrication of evidenceFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentAdministrative proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyle v. Texasgulf Aviation, Inc.

This opinion by District Judge Goettel addresses motions within the long-standing "Texasgulf cases," stemming from a 1981 corporate aircraft crash, primarily focusing on a workers' compensation lien. Plaintiff Boyle moved to extinguish or reduce a lien held by Zurich-American Insurance Companies, while Texasgulf cross-moved to amend pleadings to join as a plaintiff to apportion damages under Connecticut law. The court determined that Connecticut law governs the workers' compensation lien issues for the Connecticut residents involved, denying the plaintiffs' request for New York law. However, Texasgulf's motion to amend its pleadings was denied due to undue and unjustified delay of over four years since a key jury finding establishing its corporate independence from TGA, and after all appeals and settlements had concluded. The court emphasized that allowing such a late amendment would be contrary to judicial efficiency and the finality of judgments, despite the ambiguity of Connecticut's statutory notice requirements.

Workers' Compensation LienChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawRule 15 AmendmentUndue DelayPrejudiceCorporate VeilWrongful Death StatuteAircraft Crash Litigation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bates v. University of Texas Medical Branch

This case involves seven plaintiffs who sued the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) and Leon Clements, alleging employment discrimination based on gender, race, age, and disability, retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants filed motions for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, and arguing that the plaintiffs' claims lacked merit. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing with prejudice all claims against UTMB and Clements, including those under Title VII (age, punitive damages), §§ 1981 and 1983, ADA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their pleading was also denied, leaving only certain Title VII claims for further proceedings.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimsFirst Amendment RightsSovereign ImmunityQualified ImmunityIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTitle VII Civil Rights ActSection 1983 ClaimsADA ClaimsAge Discrimination in Employment Act
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1981

Taylor v. Libous

The petitioner, a motor equipment operator for the City of Binghamton, was discharged after pleading guilty to disorderly conduct following an altercation with a co-worker. He challenged the dismissal, seeking reinstatement or a hearing under Civil Service Law section 75, or adherence to the collective bargaining agreement grievance procedure. The city argued his guilty plea negated the grievance process and that section 75 was inapplicable due to the collective bargaining agreement. Special Term dismissed the petition, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not pursuing the available grievance procedure.

Employment TerminationGrievance ProcedureCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesCivil Service LawDischarge from EmploymentDisorderly ConductGuilty PleaArticle 78 ProceedingJudicial Review
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,423 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