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

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
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2015

Matter of Newbill v. Town of Hempstead

Claimant, a sanitation crew chief, injured his right ankle and foot at work and was awarded disability benefits. His self-insured employer paid his full weekly wages during a period of disability and timely sought reimbursement for these advanced payments. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge granted the employer's reimbursement request against a 20% schedule loss of use award for the right foot. The Board affirmed this decision, and the claimant appealed, arguing that reimbursement should not cover periods where no compensation awards were initially made. The court affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that an employer is entitled to full reimbursement from a schedule loss of use award for advanced wages paid during disability, as schedule awards are not allocable to specific periods of lost work.

Schedule Loss of UseReimbursementAdvanced Wage PaymentsDisability BenefitsEmployer RightsAppellate ReviewWorkers’ Compensation BoardStatutory InterpretationPermanent Partial DisabilityTimely Claim
References
10
Case No. 534831
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Susan Zuhlke

Susan Zuhlke appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for her right leg injuries. Zuhlke, a teacher, suffered right ankle and knee/tibia fractures in October 2018, later including fibular neuropathy. While a 25.8% SLU for her right foot was stipulated, a dispute arose over the right knee, with the Board ultimately affirming a 15% SLU based on the carrier's medical consultant's opinion and denial of reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the 15% SLU award for the right knee, consistent with impairment guidelines and prior Board decisions regarding tibial plateau fractures.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseSLURight Leg InjuryTibial Plateau FractureFibular NeuropathyMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment GuidelinesMedical OpinionsAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilcox v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to their right ankle in December 2004, twelve years after an unrelated surgery on the same ankle. Following the 2004 incident, the claimant's treating physician opined a 45% schedule loss of use of the right foot, not attributing any part of the loss to the earlier noncompensable injury. The employer's medical examiner concurred on the 45% loss but concluded that 50% was attributable to the prior injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially granted the 45% award, rejecting the employer's claim of apportionment, a decision subsequently upheld by the Workers' Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding insufficient medical evidence to support apportionment given the unavailability of records from the 1992 surgery and the speculative nature of opinions regarding a preexisting loss of use.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentSchedule Loss of UseAnkle InjuryPreexisting ConditionMedical EvidenceConflicting Medical OpinionsWorkers' Compensation BoardTreating PhysicianMedical Examiner
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1996

Claim of Page v. Insulpane, Inc.

In May 1986, the claimant suffered a compensable injury to his left foot and ankle and received workers' compensation benefits. He later settled a third-party action for $15,000, with the employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier, the State Insurance Fund, waiving its nearly $25,000 lien and its right to offset future compensation payments. Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded the claimant a schedule award of $7,687.50 for a 25% loss of use of his left foot. The carrier contended no further payments were due, claiming an overpayment. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that no overpayment occurred, excluding certain disability payments made prior to the settlement from the calculation. The carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, holding that the carrier's waiver of its rights under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 did not preclude its reliance on Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (4-a) to take a credit against the schedule award for previously paid disability benefits, as doing so would result in an unjustifiable double recovery for the claimant. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSchedule AwardThird-Party ActionSettlementLien WaiverOffsetDouble RecoveryRecoupmentDisability BenefitsJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Bank Note Co. v. State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns a petitioner challenging a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a decision from the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The original finding stated that the petitioner discriminated against Lorraine Voigt and other female employees regarding pregnancy-related disability benefits. The court annulled the board's determination, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of discrimination. The petitioner had denied Ms. Voigt's claim as untimely according to section 217 of the Disability Benefits Law. The court found that the Human Rights Law does not compel an employer to pay benefits for pregnancy-related disability if the employer would not pay similar disability claims for male employees under the same timeliness rules, which the petitioner consistently applied.

Pregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawHuman Rights LawTimeliness of ClaimSex DiscriminationEqual TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAnnulmentSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mohawk Finishing Products, Inc. v. State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner challenged a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding of unlawful discriminatory practice against the petitioner. The original complaint stemmed from the petitioner allegedly retaliating against an employee for opposing perceived sex discrimination, although the Division of Human Rights found no actual sex discrimination. The court had previously annulled and remitted the case due to an inconsistency, but the Board failed to clarify its findings. This court now rules that retaliation for opposing practices mistakenly believed to be unlawful is not protected under the Human Rights Law if the underlying practice was, in fact, lawful. Consequently, the Board's determination against the petitioner is annulled, and the petition is granted.

RetaliationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAdministrative ReviewAppellate ReviewUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeSubstantial EvidenceClarification of FindingsEmployment Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,843 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