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
Feb 08, 1999

Beaver v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

This case involves an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by Patricia Beaver against Delta Air Lines, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Beaver, a former Reservations Sales Agent (RSA), claimed Delta failed to reasonably accommodate her partial blind spot, a permanent vision loss sustained after a head injury. Delta argued that Beaver could not perform the essential functions of the RSA position, specifically productivity and attendance standards, even with accommodation. The court granted Delta's motion for summary judgment, finding that Beaver was not a "qualified individual with a disability" under the ADA because she could not perform the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation, and Delta reasonably accommodated her by offering a senior clerk position.

Americans with Disabilities ActEmployment DiscriminationDisability AccommodationSummary JudgmentVision ImpairmentEssential FunctionsQualified Individual with a DisabilityPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas AnalysisFifth Circuit
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kiphart v. Saturn Corp.

Ronald Jeffrey Kiphart sued Saturn Corporation and two unions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to reasonably accommodate his disabilities. Kiphart claimed multiple physical and mental impairments, including tendinitis, ulnar neuropathy, a fused cervical spine, and chronic depression, which he argued substantially limited his major life activities. Saturn contended Kiphart was not disabled under the ADA and was not a qualified individual, emphasizing that task rotation was an essential job function he could not perform. The company also asserted it provided reasonable accommodations through its Member Placement Program, offering temporary assignments and medical leave. The Court granted Saturn's motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that no reasonable fact-finder could find Kiphart disabled, qualified, or that Saturn failed to provide reasonable accommodation. Consequently, Kiphart's claims against Saturn were dismissed with prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsTask Rotation PolicyChronic DepressionTendinitisUlnar NeuropathyCervical Spine InjuryMedical Leave
References
41
Case No. 03-08-00690-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2010

Elliott Frank Adams v. Artco-Bell Corporation

Elliott Frank Adams appealed a final summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Artco-Bell Corporation, on claims filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Texas Labor Code. Adams, who worked as a lead person, was placed on permanent "light duty" restrictions due to knee problems in February 2005. Artco-Bell subsequently informed him that no "light duty" positions were available, leading to his separation from employment. Adams alleged disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodation. The district court granted Artco-Bell's motion for summary judgment on all claims, which Adams challenged on appeal, specifically concerning the disability-discrimination and reasonable-accommodation claims. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Artco-Bell had conclusively negated Adams's ability to perform the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable accommodations, and that the requested accommodations were unreasonable.

ADATexas Labor CodeDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawLight DutyKnee InjuryEssential Job FunctionsAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vinokur v. Sovereign Bank

Plaintiff Faina Vinokur sued Sovereign Bank for employment discrimination based on disability (rheumatoid arthritis), age (born 1954), and national origin (Russian), under the New York State Executive Law and New York City Human Rights Law. She also alleged failure to reasonably accommodate her disability and retaliatory termination. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court found that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for age and national origin discrimination, or that the bank's reason for termination (violation of Bank Secrecy Act policies regarding suspicious transactions) was a pretext for discrimination. Regarding disability discrimination, the court concluded that the plaintiff was reasonably accommodated and that her termination was not linked to her disability. The court also dismissed the retaliation claim, finding that while there was temporal proximity between her accommodation request and termination, the bank had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her discharge that the plaintiff failed to show was pretextual. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationAge DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationReasonable AccommodationBank Secrecy Act ViolationsFinancial TransactionsPrima Facie Case
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levy v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation

This case addresses a disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Daniel Levy against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and several individuals. Levy, a Forester 1 with diabetes, hearing loss, and a learning disability, alleged his employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations and retaliated against him. The Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were untimely, accommodations were met, or that their actions were for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The Court granted the Defendants' motion, ruling that claims prior to June 4, 2013, were time-barred. Furthermore, the Court determined Levy failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions, particularly writing, even with requested accommodations, and found Defendants provided legitimate reasons for alleged retaliatory actions.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Section 504 Rehabilitation ActNew York Human Rights Law (NYHRL)Reasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentForester EmploymentDiabetesLearning Disability
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bentley v. Peace and Quiet Realty 2 LLC

Daphne Bentley, a 66-year-old disabled woman, sued her landlord for refusing to allow her to move to a vacant lower-level, rent-stabilized apartment at her current rent, alleging a violation of the Fair Housing Act. Bentley, who suffers from cancer and difficulty climbing stairs, sought this accommodation to improve her ability to leave her top-floor apartment. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the requested accommodation was not contemplated by the FHAA, contending Bentley sought to accommodate her poverty, not her disability, and that offering the apartment at its maximum legal rent fulfilled their obligations. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that Bentley's request to transfer units within the building is a cognizable accommodation under the FHAA and that a disability-neutral policy does not automatically preclude an inquiry into the reasonableness of the proposed accommodation. The court scheduled a hearing to determine the reasonableness and potential burden of the requested accommodation.

Disability AccommodationFair Housing ActRent Stabilization LawReasonable AccommodationHousing DiscriminationTenant RightsUndue BurdenMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionEqual Opportunity
References
19
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05147 [129 AD3d 897]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2015

Cohen v. State of New York

This case concerns Fashawn Cohen, a former correction officer, who sued the State of New York and the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) for employment discrimination based on disability and retaliation under Executive Law § 296. Cohen sustained a work-related hand injury, received workers' compensation, and was subsequently terminated by DOCS for failing to demonstrate medical fitness to return to work. She alleged that the defendants discriminated by not providing reasonable accommodation. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the disability discrimination claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that Cohen's responses to the termination notice could reasonably be understood as a request for accommodation, and the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that they engaged in a good faith interactive process to assess her needs and the reasonableness of the requested accommodation.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentReasonable AccommodationRetaliationCivil Service LawExecutive LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationTermination
References
2
Case No. 09-24-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2025

Texas State Technical College System v. Ted H. Donavan

Ted H. Donavan sued Texas State Technical College System (TSTC) for employment discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The trial court initially granted TSTC's motion to dismiss the retaliation claim but denied it for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. On appeal, the Court of Appeals considered whether Donavan established a prima facie case of disability discrimination and whether TSTC's reason for termination was a pretext. The court determined that TSTC presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination (sleeping on the job), which Donavan failed to prove was pretextual or that his disability was the "but-for" cause. Furthermore, Donavan failed to timely notify TSTC of his disability and suggest reasonable accommodations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of TSTC's plea to the jurisdiction and rendered judgment dismissing Donavan's claims.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationFailure to AccommodateRetaliation ClaimTexas Commission on Human Rights ActSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionMotion for Summary JudgmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPretext for Discrimination
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Micari v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

The case involves Frank Micari, Jr., an airplane mechanic for Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA), who sustained work-related injuries in 1992 and 1994. After an extended medical leave and disputes over medical documentation, TWA terminated Micari's employment in August 1994 for unauthorized absences and failure to provide proper verification of his disability. Micari subsequently received Social Security Disability benefits and Workers' Compensation. He filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL), alleging TWA discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his request for light duty work and by terminating him due to his disability. The court granted summary judgment to TWA, concluding that Micari could not perform the essential functions of his job, either with or without reasonable accommodation, largely due to his prolonged absences, and that he failed to demonstrate TWA's stated reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Furthermore, the court found NYHRL does not require reasonable accommodation.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL)Summary JudgmentJudicial EstoppelReasonable AccommodationWrongful TerminationDisability BenefitsWorkers' CompensationMedical Leave
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Price v. City of New York

Plaintiff John N. Price, proceeding pro se, sued the City of New York and the New York City Department of Correction for discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) due to alleged failure to provide reasonable accommodation. Defendants moved to dismiss both claims. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom recommended granting dismissal for the retaliation claim but denying it for the discrimination claim. The District Court adopted the recommendation to dismiss the retaliation claim. For the discrimination claim, the court found Plaintiff's EEOC Intake Questionnaire was a timely 'charge' and that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a permanent physical impairment (knees and right hand) substantially limiting major life activities (working and walking). The court also found sufficient pleading of employer notice and ability to perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodation (handicapped parking pass). Consequently, the motion to dismiss the discrimination claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodation was denied.

ADADisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationRetaliation ClaimMotion to DismissPro Se LitigantTimeliness of ChargeEEOC Intake QuestionnaireFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 5,767 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