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. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Man-Of-Jerusalem v. Hill

The plaintiff, a computer programmer at the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA), filed a pro se action alleging religious discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. He claimed HRA denied him paid leave for religious holidays and family emergencies, deducted previously granted paid leave, and that co-workers created a hostile environment. The court dismissed the plaintiff's Title VII claims, ruling that allowing unpaid leave for religious observance is a reasonable accommodation, there was no discriminatory retaliation in leave deductions, and the alleged hostile environment stemmed from personality conflicts, not religious discrimination. Additionally, claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as Sections 1981, 1985, and the Rehabilitation Act, were dismissed for lack of factual support or inapplicability.

Religious discriminationEmployment discriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964Rehabilitation Act of 1973First Amendment rightsRetaliation claimsHostile work environmentMotion to dismissPro se litigantFederal statutes
References
15
Case No. 2-06-176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2007

Jackie Collins v. Tarrant Appraisal District

Jackie Collins, a former employee of Tarrant Appraisal District, appeals a summary judgment and an award of attorney's fees against her in a religious discrimination case. Collins, an adherent of the Pentecostal faith, was terminated for insubordination after refusing to provide a hair sample for drug testing, claiming it violated her religious beliefs against cutting her hair. The District argued that Collins never explicitly informed them that her refusal was due to a religious conflict. The trial court granted the motion and eventually awarded the District attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Collins failed to produce evidence for a prima facie element of her claim, rendering her claim groundless, and thus upholding the attorney's fees award.

Religious DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesTexas Labor CodePentecostal BeliefsDrug TestingHair SampleInsubordinationReasonable Accommodation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crider v. UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE

Kimberly Crider, a Seventh Day Adventist, sued the University of Tennessee under Title VII, alleging failure to accommodate her religious beliefs. Crider, a Coordinator in the Programs Abroad Office, was unable to work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday due to her observance of the Sabbath, which conflicted with her job requirement to monitor an emergency cell phone and participate in weekend events. The University attempted to find accommodations but concluded that doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business or other employees. The court found that Crider established a prima facie case of religious discrimination, but the University successfully demonstrated that no reasonable accommodation could be made without undue hardship. Therefore, the court granted the University's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

Religious DiscriminationTitle VIIFailure to AccommodateSeventh Day AdventistSabbath ObservanceSummary JudgmentUndue HardshipEmergency ProtocolCoordinator PositionUniversity Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2010

Jiglov v. Hotel Peabody, GP

Plaintiff Valeriy Jiglov, a Russian Orthodox Christian, sued his employer, The Peabody, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII. Jiglov was terminated for refusing to work on Orthodox Easter after his request for a day off was denied. The denial was initially based on an anticipated work conflict for another employee, Mr. Underhill, which later became moot when the project was cancelled. The Court denied The Peabody's motion for summary judgment regarding the religious accommodation claim, finding genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly whether accommodating Jiglov would have constituted an undue hardship after the project cancellation. However, the Court granted summary judgment on Jiglov's disparate treatment claim, concluding he failed to demonstrate that similarly situated employees outside his protected class were treated more favorably.

Religious AccommodationTitle VIISummary JudgmentUndue HardshipDisparate TreatmentEmployment DiscriminationOrthodox EasterShift SwapTerminationGross Misconduct
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 1999

Bynum v. Fort Worth Independent School District

Plaintiff William C. Bynum, a Seventh Day Adventist, sued the Fort Worth Independent School District (FWISD) for religious discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract, claiming his termination stemmed from his religious observances conflicting with JROTC instructor duties. FWISD moved for summary judgment, asserting Bynum's employment was terminated due to his decertification by the U.S. Army, a prerequisite for his role, and not discriminatory motives. The court found that FWISD had provided reasonable accommodations without undue hardship and determined that the actions leading to Bynum's decertification were undertaken by a dual-role employee in his Army capacity, not as an agent of FWISD. Consequently, the court granted FWISD's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Bynum's Title VII claim with prejudice and his supplemental state law breach of contract claims without prejudice.

Religious DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationJROTC InstructorReasonable AccommodationUndue HardshipBreach of ContractEEOC DeterminationFederal Jurisdiction
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greater Houston Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union v. Eckels

This case addresses the constitutionality of three Latin-style crosses and a Star of David erected in Bear Creek Park, Harris County, Texas, by County Commissioner Robert Eckels. The plaintiffs, including the ACLU and individual citizens, argued that the symbols represented an unconstitutional governmental establishment of religion. The defendant contended the symbols served the secular purpose of a war memorial. Applying the Lemon, Marsh, and Larson tests, the Court found that the symbols lacked a secular purpose and had the primary effect of advancing religion. The Court ordered the removal of the symbols, emphasizing the government's duty of religious neutrality under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and the protection of minority rights.

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentEstablishment ClauseReligious SymbolsPublic ParksWar MemorialGovernment NeutralitySeparation of Church and StateChristianityJudaism
References
26
Case No. 99 Civ. 1652
Regular Panel Decision

Hussein v. the Waldorf-Astoria

Mamdouh Hussein, a pro se plaintiff, sued Hilton Hotels Corporation d/b/a The Waldorf-Astoria for religious discrimination under Title VII after he was refused work for wearing a beard. The hotel's policy prohibited facial hair, and Hussein claimed his beard was religiously mandated. The Waldorf sought summary judgment, contending Hussein failed to establish a prima facie case and that accommodating him would pose an undue hardship. The court found Hussein did not prove a bona fide religious belief, provided inadequate notice, and was not disciplined due to religious animus. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Religious DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentBona Fide Religious BeliefReasonable AccommodationUndue HardshipGrooming PolicyFacial HairPro Se PlaintiffEmployment Law
References
35
Case No. 03-99-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1999

Coalition of Texans With Disabilities v. Tommy v. Smith, Former Commissioner of Licensing and Regulation for Department of Licensing and Regulation, in His Official Capacity Rachelle A. Martin, Executive Director of TDLR And Members of the Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation

The Coalition of Texans with Disabilities challenged the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation's (TDLR) interpretation of Section 2(g) of the Architectural Barriers Act. The dispute centered on whether the Act's exemption for religious facilities applied to entire buildings or only to specific areas used for religious rituals. The district court sided with the TDLR, broadly exempting entire religious buildings. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the Department's interpretation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the Act's purpose of eliminating barriers for disabled persons. The appellate court clarified that the exemption only applies to places within a religious building used primarily for rituals, not the entire structure, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

AccessibilityDisability RightsReligious ExemptionsArchitectural Barriers ActStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTexas LawSummary Judgment
References
33
Case No. 03-14-00112-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2016

Dr. James Jones v. Angelo State University

Dr. James Jones, an associate professor at Angelo State University, sued his former employer for religious discrimination, alleging he was discharged due to his religious beliefs and practices, specifically making religious statements in class. The University cited violation of policy, declining performance, and insubordination as reasons for his non-reappointment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the University. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Jones's discriminatory discharge claim based on disparate treatment. However, it reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment regarding the University's alleged failure to accommodate Jones's religious practice, finding the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on this ground.

Religious DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeFailure to AccommodateDisparate TreatmentAcademic EmploymentUniversity PolicyReligious Freedom
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 1,629 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