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

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. 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
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07501
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2017

Graham v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Richard Graham, a nurse with Tourette's syndrome and spinal stenosis, sued the New York State Office of Mental Health and others for disability discrimination and retaliation after his probationary employment was terminated. Graham alleged refusal of reasonable accommodation for his disabilities during a job transfer and retaliation for requesting accommodations. The defendants argued that Graham failed to cooperate in the interactive accommodation process and was legitimately terminated for falsifying his employment application regarding prior state employment. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that there was no refusal of reasonable accommodation and that the termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds.

Disability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentEmployment LawProbationary EmploymentFalsification of Employment ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LeaveInteractive ProcessHuman Rights Law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. McHugh

Marytherese Miller, a legal technician at West Point, sued her employer, the Secretary of the Army, alleging employment discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, hostile work environment, and Privacy Act violations. Miller, who underwent two knee surgeries, requested worksite and parking accommodations, and advanced leave, which she claims were denied or inadequately provided. She also alleged a job reclassification, lowered performance evaluations, and inappropriate comments from co-workers were retaliatory or created a hostile environment. The Government moved for summary judgment, arguing Miller was not disabled under the ADA during the relevant periods, her accommodations were reasonable, and her other claims lacked prima facie evidence or causal connection. The court found Miller did not provide sufficient medical evidence of disability prior to her second surgery and that reasonable accommodations were offered afterward. It also determined that alleged retaliatory actions predated protected activities or lacked causation, and that hostile work environment claims were not severe or pervasive enough. Finally, Miller's Privacy Act claim lacked proof of record disclosure or adverse effect. Consequently, the Government's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationFailure to AccommodateRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentPrivacy ActSummary JudgmentRehabilitation ActAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VII
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spinella v. Town of Paris Zoning Board of Appeals

The respondents moved to dismiss the petition alleging petitioners failed to submit a proposed judgment within 60 days, deeming it abandoned. Petitioners' counsel, a qualified individual with a visual disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, argued that his impairment constituted 'good cause' for the delay. He sought reasonable accommodation, citing past accommodations for the bar exam and law school, as well as an increased workload due to a lost secretary. The court found that the counsel's visual impairment indeed served as good cause for noncompliance with the established time limits. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and the proposed judgment was signed, recognizing the extension of time as a reasonable accommodation.

Americans with Disabilities ActADADisability AccommodationJudicial DiscretionProcedural RulesTime LimitsGood CauseVisual ImpairmentAttorney DisabilityCourt Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bucaro v. Morales

Professor Thomas Búcaro, a hearing-impaired tenured professor at the College of Staten Island (CSI), petitioned the court after his long-standing reasonable accommodation, including reduced classroom hours and CART services, was removed from his fall 2007 teaching schedule without his consent. Búcaro alleged retaliation and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Human Rights Laws. The court found that CSI's removal of the established accommodation violated the ADA. Consequently, the court ordered CSI to promptly collaborate with Professor Búcaro to establish a new reasonable accommodation for his teaching schedule, ensuring he avoids an excessive course load in the Spring 2008 semester.

Disability AccommodationAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActNew York Human Rights LawRetaliationEmployment DiscriminationAcademic EmploymentReasonable AccommodationCollege of Staten IslandCity University of New York
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,436 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