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

Muhammad v. New York City Transit Authority

Plaintiff, an African-American Muslim bus driver, brought an employment discrimination lawsuit against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), alleging gender, religious, and racial discrimination due to her employer's policies regarding religious headwear. NYCTA moved to dismiss four of her eleven causes of action. The court granted dismissal of the Title VII hostile work environment claim, finding co-worker hostility stemmed from jealousy over work assignments, not protected characteristics. The Title VII race discrimination claim was also dismissed as it was not reasonably related to the plaintiff's initial EEOC charge. However, the court denied dismissal of the claim under New York City Administrative Law § 8-107(1), rejecting NYCTA's argument of statutory exemption. Lastly, the religious discrimination claim under the New York State Constitution Article I, § 3 was dismissed because other statutory remedies, like the New York Human Rights Law, were available to the plaintiff.

Employment DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentEEOC ExhaustionMotion to DismissFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)New York Public Authorities LawNew York City Administrative Code
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2001

Carr v. WestLB Administration, Inc.

Plaintiff Arlen Carr sued his employer, WestLB Administration, alleging age and religious discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. WestLB moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted WestLB's motion for summary judgment on the age discrimination, retaliation, and emotional distress claims, finding Carr failed to establish a prima facie case for age discrimination and retaliation, and the emotional distress claims were legally barred. Carr voluntarily withdrew his religious discrimination claims, which were then dismissed with prejudice. Therefore, the court entered summary judgment in favor of WestLB on all counts.

Age DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPrima Facie CaseEmotional DistressADEANYSHRLTitle VII
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simmons v. American Apartment Management Co.

Plaintiff, acting pro se, sued her former employer for age, race, and religious discrimination, and retaliation. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing lack of evidence and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for the age discrimination claim. The court granted summary judgment for the age discrimination claim due to Plaintiff's failure to include it in her EEOC charge. However, the court denied summary judgment for the racial and religious discrimination and retaliation claims, finding sufficient evidence for a factfinder to infer pretext and to proceed with a hostile work environment claim. The case will proceed to trial for the Title VII claims.

Age DiscriminationRace DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIADEAHostile Work EnvironmentPretextEEOC
References
27
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2001

Abraham v. DIAGNOSTIC CENTER HOSP. CORP. OF TEXAS

Jeffrey Abraham sued his former employer, Diagnostic Center Hospital Corporation of Texas, for religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Abraham alleged discriminatory treatment and termination based on his religious beliefs, which the employer justified as excessive unexcused absences. Diagnostic Center moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied Diagnostic Center's motion regarding the religious discrimination claim, finding Abraham presented sufficient evidence for a prima facie case and to show pretext. However, Abraham chose not to pursue his retaliation claim, leading the court to grant summary judgment for Diagnostic Center on that specific claim.

Employment LawTitle VIIReligious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentFederal Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Al-Amin v. City of New York

Four African-American Muslim plaintiffs challenged New York City's General Vendors Law after being issued summonses for selling religious articles without a license in Brooklyn's Fulton Mall. They alleged violations of their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free speech, and religious discrimination under New York Civil Rights Law. The federal district court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment regarding the First Amendment claims. The court found that selling perfume oils and incense was not an expressive activity protected by the First Amendment and that the General Vendors Law was a neutral, generally applicable regulation. The state law religious discrimination claim was not decided.

Religious freedomFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechFree Exercise ClauseGeneral Vendors LawFulton MallSummary JudgmentCommercial SpeechReligious DiscriminationCivil Rights
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2008

Siddiqi v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Khursheed Siddiqi, a medical technologist, sued New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation (HHC) alleging discrimination based on race, age, religion, and national origin. Claims included violations of federal and state laws for involuntary transfer, denial of promotion, refusal of religious holidays, negative performance evaluations, and a hostile work environment. The court granted HHC's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. Age discrimination and several time-barred federal claims were dismissed. The court allowed a claim for religious discrimination regarding unequal holiday leave and a hostile work environment claim to proceed, but dismissed retaliation claims for failure to promote and performance evaluations.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPerformance EvaluationsFailure to PromoteStatute of Limitations
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcimonde-Fisher v. Area203 Marketing, LLC

This case involves religious discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims brought by Lauren Gareimonde-Fisher, Jeffrey L. Harris, and Jeffrey L. Cole against Area203 Marketing. Plaintiffs allege that the company's owner, Carey Brown, fostered a workplace environment saturated with evangelical Christian beliefs, including mandatory religious events, biblical imagery, and derogatory comments toward non-Evangelical Christians. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all plaintiffs' hostile work environment and retaliation claims. Additionally, Plaintiff Cole's discrimination claim survived summary judgment due to direct evidence. However, the discrimination claims of Plaintiffs Harris and Garcimonde-Fisher were dismissed due to a lack of sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence.

Religious DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEmployment LawEvangelical ChristianityCatholicismWorkplace HarassmentProtected Activity
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Speer v. Presbyterian Children's Home & Service Agency

Georgette Speer and the Texas Commission on Human Rights (Commission) appealed a judgment favoring Presbyterian Children’s Home & Service Agency (PCHSA). Speer, who is Jewish, was denied a senior adoption worker position at PCHSA, which cited a policy of hiring only Christians. The plaintiffs alleged employment discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. The trial court found PCHSA to be a religious corporation, exempt under section 5.06(1) of the Act, and ruled in its favor. The appellate court affirmed this decision, agreeing that PCHSA qualified as a religious corporation and that the senior adoption worker role involved religious activities, making the discrimination lawful. Additionally, the court upheld the trial court's discretion in not awarding attorney's fees to PCHSA, concluding that the plaintiffs' claim was not frivolous.

Employment DiscriminationReligious ExemptionTexas Commission on Human Rights ActNonprofit OrganizationReligious CorporationFreedom of ReligionDiscrimination based on ReligionAppellate ReviewFactual InsufficiencyLegal Insufficiency
References
24
Case No. 01A01-9602-CH-00073
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 1998

Devore v. Deloitte & Touche

This appeal concerns an employment discrimination action filed by Maurice DeVore against Deloitte & Touche. DeVore, a computer programmer, alleged he was terminated due to race discrimination and in retaliation for filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The trial court granted summary judgment to Deloitte & Touche, determining DeVore failed to present sufficient evidence of discrimination or pretext. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that DeVore's statistical evidence and personal beliefs were insufficient to prove pretext for the employer's stated reason of inadequate job performance.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextual ReasonStatistical EvidenceJob PerformanceTraining DisparityEEOC Charge
References
65
Showing 1-10 of 2,439 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