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

Suffolk County Community College v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Suffolk County Community College to review a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Division had previously found the college guilty of unlawful racially discriminatory practices and retaliation against an employee, awarding $50,000 in compensatory damages. The Division of Human Rights cross-petitioned to enforce this determination. Following a reversal and remittal by the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division reviewed the matter. The court denied the branch of the cross-petition seeking to enforce the $50,000 compensatory damages award, finding it excessive due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration, severity, or consequences of the complainant's mental anguish related to racial discrimination. The determination was otherwise confirmed, and the case was remitted to the New York State Division of Human Rights for a new award of compensatory damages not exceeding $5,000.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationCompensatory DamagesExcessive DamagesMental AnguishAdministrative Law ReviewHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewRemittalSufficiency of Evidence
References
8
Case No. 04-CV-5449
Regular Panel Decision

Litle v. Arab Bank, PLC

Thousands of U.S. and foreign nationals sued Arab Bank PLC under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and Alien Tort Claims Act (ATS), alleging the bank knowingly financed terrorist organizations responsible for attacks in Israel. Arab Bank, in turn, filed third-party complaints seeking contribution from other Israeli banks, claiming they also processed funds for "front" organizations. The court examined whether a right to contribution exists under the ATA or ATS. It concluded that Congress did not explicitly or implicitly create such a right under the ATA, nor should federal common law establish one, especially for intentional wrongdoers. Similarly, no basis was found to create a contribution right under the ATS. Therefore, the third-party defendants' motions to dismiss Arab Bank's contribution claims were granted, and the plaintiffs' motion to strike was dismissed as moot.

terrorism financingAnti-Terrorism ActAlien Tort Claims Actcontribution rightsfederal common lawtort liabilityinternational terrorismbank complicityMiddle East conflictterrorist organizations
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 1997

Claim of Whitcomb v. Xerox Corp.

In July 1993, a claimant sustained a compensable neck and back injury during employment and subsequently received workers’ compensation benefits. She initiated and settled a third-party action for $50,000, with the employer’s carrier consenting while explicitly reserving its right to seek reimbursement for payments exceeding the settlement amount. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge classified her as permanently partially disabled and credited the net third-party recovery against her continuing workers’ compensation award. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this decision, ruling that the carrier had adequately preserved its offset rights, a finding affirmed on appeal based on substantial evidence from the carrier’s written consent.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementOffset RightsReimbursementPermanent Partial DisabilityCarrier ConsentAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFuture Awards
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raquet v. Braun

This case addresses whether parties held liable under General Municipal Law former § 205-a, which protects injured firefighters, may seek contribution or indemnification from other allegedly culpable parties not directly liable to the firefighters. In a prior ruling concerning a November 1984 fire, the Court of Appeals had dismissed direct claims by injured firefighter Frank Raquet and the representative of deceased firefighter Mitchell Spoth against contractor defendants due to a lack of premises control, while reinstating claims against the owner Leonard Zane and tenant defendants. Zane and the tenant defendants subsequently sought to convert their cross-claims against the contractors into third-party complaints for indemnification and contribution, which lower courts denied. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statutory limitations of § 205-a for direct firefighter recovery do not preclude indemnification or contribution actions among alleged tortfeasors. The decision clarifies that the principle allowing a defendant to seek contribution from a third party, even if the injured plaintiff has no direct right of recovery, applies in this context, ensuring that the economic burden can be shifted to those whose negligence actually caused the harm.

ContributionIndemnificationGeneral Municipal Law § 205-aFirefighters RulePremises LiabilityBuilding Code ViolationsThird-Party ActionsTortfeasorsApportionment of DamagesComparative Fault
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Universal Packaging Corp. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Tina Del Regno filed a sexual harassment complaint against Universal Packaging Corporation (UPC) with the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) in 1994, and a retaliation claim with the EEOC in 1997. SDHR found probable cause on the 1994 complaint, but Del Regno requested dismissal for administrative convenience to pursue all claims in federal court, which SDHR granted in July 1998. Petitioners, likely UPC, sought judicial review under Executive Law § 298 to annul SDHR's dismissal, arguing it was arbitrary and seeking a remand for a public hearing. The court analyzed relevant legal precedents and legislative amendments to Executive Law § 297 (9), particularly concerning the annulment of the election of remedies. Concluding that Del Regno's plan to consolidate her state and federal claims in one forum justified the administrative convenience dismissal, the court dismissed the petition.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliation ClaimAdministrative ConvenienceJudicial ReviewHuman Rights LawElection of RemediesFederal Court JurisdictionState Law ClaimsExecutive LawEmployment Discrimination
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Father Belle Community Center v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This proceeding addresses whether a corporate employer can be held directly liable for sexual harassment perpetrated by its highest managerial employee, even without proof of vicarious liability. The New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) filed a petition seeking enforcement of a determination that the Father Belle Community Center was liable for sexual harassment by its Executive Director, Vito Caruso, against three complainants: Deborah King, Elizabeth Hurd, and Deborah Horvatits. The court affirmed the finding that the Center was directly liable for Caruso's quid pro quo and hostile work environment harassment, and for its Board of Directors' condonation and retaliatory discharge of complainants. The court also upheld the $60,000 awards to each complainant for mental anguish and humiliation.

Sexual HarassmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentEmployer LiabilityDirect LiabilityRetaliatory DischargeHuman Rights LawDiscriminationMental Anguish DamagesCorporate Governance
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 7,937 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