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

Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. State Division of Human Rights

This decision vacates a previous order and remands the matter to the State Division of Human Rights for a hearing. The initial court had dismissed a complaint, finding New York's Human Rights Law pre-empted by ERISA regarding pregnancy disability benefits. The Court of Appeals remitted for reconsideration in light of Shaw v Delta Airlines, which clarified that pre-emption only applies when a state law prohibits practices lawful under federal law. The court noted that the discrimination, alleged in 1977, predated the federal prohibition against pregnancy discrimination (effective April 29, 1979). However, ERISA exempts plans maintained solely for complying with disability insurance laws. The record is unclear if petitioner's plan is a separate plan (where NY Human Rights Law would apply) or part of a larger employee benefit plan (where ERISA would control). Therefore, the case is remanded for a determination on this specific factual issue only.

ERISA Pre-emptionHuman Rights LawPregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawState Law Pre-emptionFederal Law ConflictRemittiturEmployee Benefit PlansJudicial RemandWorkers' Compensation Law Art 9
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re David Michael J.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Onondaga County Family Court, presided over by Judge Hedges, which terminated parental rights. The Appellate Court previously remitted the matter to Family Court for further proceedings, including a dispositional hearing. On remittal, the Family Court's determination was found to be supported by legally sufficient evidence, despite the admission of hearsay testimony, which was deemed proper under Family Ct Act § 624. The court properly relied on testimony from prior hearings and the dispositional hearing to conclude that there had been no substantial change or progress from the respondent that would prevent the termination of parental rights. Consequently, the order to terminate parental rights was unanimously affirmed.

Parental RightsTermination of Parental RightsFamily CourtAppealHearsay EvidenceDispositional HearingSuspended JudgmentComplianceFoster Care
References
3
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

Broad Elm Auto Centers, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

The determination that petitioner engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in the conditions of complainant’s employment is supported by substantial evidence. The hearing testimony established that a store manager frequently made derogatory racial comments about the complainant, including referring to him as his 'little nigger slave,' in the presence of customers and co-workers. A compensatory award of $5,000 for mental anguish was found to be supported by the evidence and not excessive. The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Administrative Law Judge and Commissioner lacked authority to determine discriminatory practice based on racial slurs, even though the original complaint focused on unlawful termination due to racial discrimination. The Human Rights Law's predominant purpose is to eliminate discrimination in basic opportunities, and it considers racial insults and harassment in employment as unlawful discriminatory practice.

Racial discriminationUnlawful discriminatory practiceEmployment conditionsRacial slursHarassmentMental anguish awardHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate decisionSubstantial evidence
References
7
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

New York State Division of Human Rights v. Parkview Auto Sales, Inc.

The court granted in part the petition to annul a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights. While substantial evidence supported the compensatory damages award for mental anguish and humiliation, the back pay award of $25,620 was vacated. The back pay calculation was based on projections rather than actual salary and benefits of a co-worker and failed to account for unemployment compensation received by the complainant. The matter was remitted to the Division to properly determine the back pay amount, reduced by unemployment compensation, and to conduct a hearing if advised. The Division's petition to enforce the determination was granted except for the vacated back pay award.

Human Rights LawCompensatory DamagesBack PayMental AnguishHumiliationUnemployment BenefitsRemittiturJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawEmployment Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Batthany v. Scully

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by petitioner Everett Batthany, an inmate, to annul a Superintendent’s hearing disposition from February 17, 1987. Batthany was found guilty of attempted escape despite claiming mental incapacity. The Hearing Officer, Captain Carol Reynolds, based her decision on off-the-record conversations with psychiatric staff, which Batthany argued violated his due process rights. The Commissioner of Correctional Services had previously reduced Batthany's punishment. The court found that Batthany’s right to confront evidence was violated by the reliance on off-the-record information. Consequently, the court annulled the original disposition, ordered all related records expunged, and directed a rehearing where Batthany should be permitted to interpose the affirmative defense of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.

Inmate RightsDue ProcessSuperintendent's HearingMental Health DefenseAttempted EscapeOff-the-Record EvidencePrison DisciplineCPLR Article 78AnnulmentRehearing
References
6
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,430 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