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
Mar 20, 2008

Brightman v. Prison Health Services, Inc.

The plaintiff alleged retaliation after filing a sexual harassment complaint against one of the defendants. The alleged retaliatory acts included an increased workload, denied overtime opportunities, unpaid overtime, denial of vacation and holiday pay, transfer to a different location where the harasser worked, and being forced to work as a 'floater.' The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the action. This decision was unanimously affirmed, with the court finding that the plaintiff's allegations stated a valid claim for retaliation under both the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The court concluded that the defendants' alleged acts were 'materially adverse' and reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity.

RetaliationSexual HarassmentHuman Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Adverse ActionWorkplace RetaliationNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beattie v. Farnsworth Middle School

Plaintiff Patricia Beattie, a part-time paraprofessional, filed a sex discrimination action against the Guilderland Central School District and several individual defendants, alleging sexual harassment by Roger Levinthal and retaliation after she reported the harassment. The court addressed motions to dismiss, finding that the sexual harassment claims were largely time-barred under Title VII due to the continuing violation exception not applying, and employer liability for co-worker harassment was not established for the physical acts. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim, finding sufficient facts to support a prima facie case. Individual defendants' motions to dismiss for individual liability under HRL and Section 1983 were granted, except for Roger Levinthal. The Section 1985 conspiracy claim was also dismissed for lack of specific discriminatory animus.

Sexual harassmentRetaliationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSection 1983Continuing violation doctrineHostile work environmentEmployer liabilityIndividual liabilityPrima facie case
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Riese Organization, Inc.

Plaintiffs, former maintenance workers, were terminated and signed severance agreements releasing all employment-related claims, including those under human rights laws, in exchange for severance pay. Approximately three years later, they filed a lawsuit against their former employer, A.R.O. Construction Corp., alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the releases barred the claims. While plaintiffs contended the releases were procured by duress and fraud, the appellate court determined that plaintiffs had ratified the agreements by accepting the severance payments and failing to promptly repudiate the releases. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss and ordered the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.

Employment discriminationRetaliationHostile work environmentSeverance agreementGeneral releaseContract ratificationDuressFraudMotion to dismissAppellate review
References
14
Case No. 15-CV-1136
Regular Panel Decision

Skates v. Incorporated Village of Freeport

Plaintiff Earline Skates sued the Incorporated Village of Freeport for racial discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, FMLA retaliation, ADA discrimination, First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and NYSHRL violations. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection for her First Amendment retaliation claim and did not show that the defendant's reasons for her termination (insubordination, absences, and discriminatory statements) were pretextual for FMLA retaliation.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIFMLA RetaliationADA DiscriminationFirst Amendment RetaliationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 1990

Claim of Campbell v. McMillan Book Co.

This case involves an appeal from an amended decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had previously ruled that the discharge of the claimant’s decedent was not in retaliation for filing a compensation claim. The appellate court found that the claimant failed to meet the burden of proving that the decedent’s discharge was retaliatory. The Workers’ Compensation Board’s conclusion that the decedent was discharged for a valid business purpose, specifically for failing to timely file a required form despite warnings and extensions, was supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the determination that the employment termination was not retaliatory for filing disability benefits was upheld.

Retaliatory DischargeDisability ClaimEmployment TerminationTimely Filing RequirementBusiness JustificationEvidentiary SupportAppellate ReviewClaim DenialWorkplace Policies
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corrado v. New York Unified Court System

Plaintiff Nicole Corrado, an attorney at the New York State United Court System (UCS), sued UCS and eight individual defendants for sexual harassment and retaliation. She alleged sexual harassment by supervisors between 2003-2008 and subsequent retaliation for reporting it, which included increased scrutiny, negative performance reviews, and forced counseling, culminating in her constructive discharge. The court dismissed all claims against two defendants, Raniere and Friedberg, due to the statute of limitations. Additionally, claims for FMLA retaliation under NYCHRL, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were dismissed against all individual defendants. However, claims of retaliation under NYSHRL/NYCHRL and FMLA retaliation survived dismissal against the remaining six individual defendants.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationFMLANYSHRLNYCHRLStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 4(m)Continuing Violation Doctrine
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mendelsohn v. University Hospital

Barry Mendelsohn sued University Hospital and Dennis Sheppard for retaliation and discrimination. He alleged Sheppard failed to promote him in retaliation for union complaints, violating 42 U.S.C. § 1988. He also claimed the Hospital discriminated based on sex and retaliated by removing teaching duties after he filed a sex discrimination charge, violating Title VII and NYHRL. Defendants moved to dismiss. The court granted dismissal of the § 1983 retaliation claim against Sheppard and the Title VII sex discrimination claim (with leave to amend regarding qualification), and the NYHRL claims. However, the court denied dismissal of the Title VII retaliation claim against the Hospital, finding that diminished teaching responsibilities constituted an adverse employment action.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISex DiscriminationFailure to PromoteAdverse Employment ActionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)42 U.S.C. Section 1983First AmendmentMotion to Dismiss
References
23
Case No. 08-cv-6567L
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. NYS Department of Corrections Attica Correctional Facility

Plaintiff Stefanie A. Davis, a former employee of the New York State Department of Corrections at Attica Correctional Facility, filed a lawsuit alleging race and gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. She claimed her supervisor assigned her a disproportionate number of minority inmates, and she faced retaliation after complaining. Defendant's initial motion for summary judgment was granted for all claims except retaliation. Following this, Defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment on the remaining retaliation claim. The court granted Defendant's second summary judgment motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation, specifically noting the absence of protected activity and materially adverse employment action.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationProtected ActivityAdverse Employment ActionPro Se Litigant
References
24
Case No. 04CV0650
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Nassau County Department of Corrections

This case involves plaintiff Donna Anderson, a Correction Officer in the Nassau County Sheriff's Department, who alleges gender discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to promote, and retaliation. Anderson claims she was passed over for a lieutenant promotion despite achieving the top exam score, subjected to sexually explicit harassment and disparate treatment regarding work assignments and vehicle use. She further alleges retaliation after complaining about these issues and reporting clerical problems in her unit, leading to disciplinary actions and demotion. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing claims were time-barred and without merit, and that the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim was invalid. The court denied most of the defendants' motions, allowing the hostile work environment, failure to promote, and most retaliation claims to proceed, but dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim.

Gender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentFailure to PromoteRetaliationCivil RightsTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1983Executive LawSummary JudgmentPublic Employment
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Maimonides Medical Center

Plaintiff, a black staff nurse, sued her employer hospital under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and New York Human Rights Law, alleging racial discrimination after being denied a promotion in May 1980 and subsequently experiencing retaliation for filing complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights and EEOC in October 1980. The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction, promotion with back pay, damages, and attorney fees. Defendant moved to dismiss the retaliation claims, arguing § 1981 does not cover retaliation. Citing precedent like DeMatteis v. Eastman Kodak Co., the court found that § 1981 does protect against retaliation for vindicating civil rights and denied the motion to dismiss the § 1981 and state Human Rights Law retaliation claims. The court also denied the defendant's request to stay the action.

racial discriminationemployment discriminationretaliationcivil rightsHuman Rights LawSection 1981motion to dismissfederal jurisdictionsupplemental jurisdictionjudicial remedies
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 846 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