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. Docket No. 16
Regular Panel Decision

Issac v. City of New York

Steven Isaac, a 53-year-old African American male, brought claims of employment discrimination and retaliation against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Correction, and Deputy Commissioner Kathleen Coughlin. His claims under Title VII, ADEA, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 alleged age discrimination for denial of promotions to three positions and retaliation for filing a prior discrimination complaint. Isaac also claimed retaliation regarding a Staff Analyst title and an incorrect phone number listing. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that Isaac failed to establish a prima facie case for most age discrimination claims and, where he did, could not prove pretext. The retaliation claims also failed due to lack of a causal connection and insufficient evidence of pretext.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADEACivil Rights ActFirst AmendmentSummary JudgmentCausal ConnectionPretext
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cheng v. New York Telephone Co.

Plaintiff Victor Cheng sued New York Telephone Company (NYT) and Communications Workers of America, Local 1101 (CWA) for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, NYHRL, and NYC Administrative Code. Cheng, an Asian male service technician, was fired by NYT for allegedly violating its competitive activities policy by working for rival companies. He claimed this was a pretext for racial discrimination and that the CWA failed to vigorously pursue his grievance due to his race. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court found NYT presented ample non-discriminatory reasons for Cheng's discharge and that Cheng failed to provide sufficient evidence of pretext or discriminatory animus from either defendant, dismissing his allegations as unsupported hearsay and conclusory. The Court also noted CWA's claim for breach of duty of fair representation was time-barred. Therefore, the Court granted both defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. § 1981New York State Human Rights LawNYC Administrative CodeDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementCompetitive Activity PolicyWrongful Termination
References
11
Case No. ADJ7811358
Regular
Jan 22, 2016

PABLO ORTEGA vs. PRAVIN PATEL, TJ, LLC dba SANTA CRUZ BEACH INN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration of an award for unlawful discrimination. The employer argued the applicant was laid off due to business slowdown and failed to mitigate wages, but the Board upheld the finding of pretext and discrimination. The Board also confirmed that medical-legal expenses are considered employee compensation and are subject to the one-half increase for discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. Therefore, the employer is liable for the increased compensation including the PQME's medical-legal costs.

Labor Code 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical-legal expenseIncreased compensationBack-payPretextDiscriminationLayoff
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1997

Petrykiewicz v. Xerox Corp.

Zbigniew S. Petrykiewicz, a contract employee, sued Xerox Corporation alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and retaliation. Petrykiewicz claimed Xerox failed to hire him because of his age and terminated his contract employment in retaliation for complaining about age discrimination. Xerox filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted Xerox's motion, finding that Petrykiewicz failed to demonstrate that Xerox's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions (lack of a bachelor's degree for hiring and staffing reductions for termination) were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. The plaintiff's complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActSummary JudgmentRetaliation ClaimEmployment DiscriminationContract EmploymentQualification RequirementsPretextPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingFederal Civil Procedure
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2016

Oliphant v. Caldwell

Plaintiff William Oliphant, an African American man, brought a Section 1983 action against Anne Caldwell and David Jolly, alleging he was denied equal protection through a failure to promote him at the Orange County Department of Social Services in 2011 and 2012. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their promotion decisions. The court denied the motion, finding that a reasonable jury could infer racial discrimination as a motivating factor due to evidence such as racial disparities in supervisory positions, Oliphant's superior qualifications, and potential pretext in the defendants' explanations.

Employment DiscriminationSection 1983Equal ProtectionSummary JudgmentRacial DiscriminationPromotion DenialCivil Service LawDisparate TreatmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkFederal Court
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Mancini

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed a judgment convicting the defendant of robbery in the first degree, sentencing him as a second violent felony offender. The Court specifically affirmed the ruling from a Batson hearing where the prosecution provided race-neutral explanations for exercising peremptory challenges during jury selection. The prosecutor's criteria for juror selection were based on age, marital status, education level, and profession (avoiding teachers due to personal negative experiences). The Court found the explanations race-neutral and that the defense failed to demonstrate pretext, also recalling and vacating a prior order.

Jury SelectionBatson ChallengePeremptory ChallengesRace-Neutral ExplanationRobberyAppellate ReviewConviction AffirmedSecond Violent Felony OffenderVoir Dire
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connell v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York

Plaintiff Lawrence J. Connell filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., alleging unlawful termination due to age. Connell, 43, was discharged along with three other supervisors for violating Con Edison's "no retaliation policy" against employees reporting environmental infractions. Defendant moved for summary judgment, presenting evidence that the termination was due to inappropriate conduct, not age. The court examined Connell's arguments of pretext and discriminatory remarks, but found the evidence insufficient to establish age discrimination. The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Age DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentEnvironmental PolicyRetaliationWorkplace HarassmentMcDonnell Douglas TestPretextFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56ADEA
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. Rosa

In 1985, David Martell, perceived to be at risk for AIDS, received dental treatment at North Shore University Hospital under strict isolation techniques. Martell filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), alleging discrimination based on perceived disability, which DHR upheld. The hospital sought judicial review, and the Appellate Division annulled DHR's determination, finding the protocol reasonable based on prevailing medical consensus at the time. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the hospital's actions were supported by sound medical judgment and were not a pretext for discrimination, thereby dismissing the complaint.

AIDS discriminationPerceived disabilityHuman Rights LawInfectious disease protocolDental treatmentMedical judgmentAppellate reviewAdministrative lawDisparate treatmentPretext for discrimination
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGill v. Sybron Corp.

Gary McGill sued Sybron Corporation, Castle Division, alleging age discrimination under the ADEA after being fired at age 52. McGill, who had been a Materials Manager for 12 years with 'satisfactory' performance reviews, was dismissed without prior notice or adherence to company procedures and replaced by a 32-year-old. Sybron argued the termination was due to inadequate performance and corporate reorganization. The court acknowledged McGill established a prima facie case but found he failed to present sufficient evidence to prove Sybron's reasons were a pretext for age discrimination. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentADEAPrima Facie CasePretext for DiscriminationBurden of ProofCorporate ReorganizationMaterial FactTermination of Employment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nembhard v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Plaintiff Inez Nembhard sued Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center for age and race discrimination. A jury found for Nembhard on age discrimination, awarding $110,000 back pay, and found for Memorial on race discrimination. Memorial moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, alleging insufficient evidence, but the court denied these motions. The court found sufficient evidence of pretext, disproportionate punishment, and overtly discriminatory statements supporting the age discrimination verdict. Nembhard's motion for attorney fees and costs was granted, awarding her $100,893.75 in fees and $6,880.64 in costs.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsAttorney Fees and CostsBack Pay AwardLiquidated DamagesPretextual FiringWillful DiscriminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 141 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