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
Apr 05, 2001

In re Trebor UU.

Respondent, the mother of two sons, Trebor (born in 1992) and Tahran (born in 1994), appealed an order from the Family Court of Clinton County which terminated her parental rights on the grounds of mental illness. The children had been in the care and custody of the petitioner since December 1998, following a prior finding of neglect. In October 2000, the petitioner filed a petition to terminate parental rights. The Family Court determined that respondent suffered from a mental illness, as defined by Social Services Law § 384-b (6) (a), rendering her unable to provide proper and adequate care for her children for the present and foreseeable future. Respondent challenged the expert testimony's methodology and the sufficiency of evidence regarding her future incapacity. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the expert testimony was sufficiently based and that there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent's mental illness prevented her from caring for her children, despite conflicting expert opinions on future improvement.

Parental Rights TerminationMental Illness (Parent)Family Court ActSocial Services LawExpert TestimonyClinical PsychologyPersonality DisorderAppellate DecisionChild WelfareForeseeability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Brandon D.

This case involves an appeal regarding a proceeding to terminate parental rights. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the Family Court's decision, which determined that the respondent was unable to provide proper and adequate care for her children due to mental illness. This finding was supported by clear and convincing evidence, including testimony and documentary evidence from three psychiatrists and a social worker, with no countervailing evidence presented by the respondent. The appellate court also concluded that a separate dispositional hearing was not necessary in this instance.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessChild WelfareFamily LawAppellate ReviewClear and Convincing EvidenceSocial Services LawInadequate Parental CarePsychiatric EvaluationWayne County Family Court
References
7
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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Periana v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves a petitioner's review of an order from the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The original order, dated October 13, 1989, concluded that Becton Dickinson Immunodiagnostics did not discriminate against the petitioner based on sex and national origin. The court confirmed this determination, finding substantial evidence to support the employer's actions. Evidence indicated the petitioner failed to follow company procedures, exhibited poor interpersonal skills, and maintained irregular hours. Consequently, the proceeding was dismissed on the merits.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAdministrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkplace ConductInterpersonal SkillsIrregular Hours
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1997

In re Christine K.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of disposition issued by the Family Court, Orange County, on February 27, 1997. The order terminated the parental rights of the appellant mother, finding her presently and foreseeably unable to care for her child due to mental illness, specifically schizophrenia. Evidence included a long history of psychiatric treatment, inappropriate behavior, and a psychiatrist's testimony that despite potential symptom improvement, underlying psychological issues would prevent adequate care. The child's custody was committed to the Orange County Department of Social Services for adoption purposes. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence under Social Services Law § 384-b.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessSchizophreniaChild WelfareFamily Court AppealSocial Services LawInability to CarePsychiatric EvaluationAppellate DivisionAdoption Proceedings
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas A. Galante & Son, Inc. v. State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner employer sought judicial review of a State Human Rights Appeal Board's determination, which found the employer discriminated against the complainant by terminating her employment due to pregnancy. The Board had ordered back pay and reemployment. The court's review focused on whether the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence, specifically regarding the employer's knowledge of the complainant's pregnancy. The court concluded that the evidence, based on a coworker's testimony that "everybody knew" about the pregnancy, was insufficient to establish the employer's management had such knowledge. Therefore, the court granted the petition and annulled the Board's determination.

Employment LawDiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationHuman Rights LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate CourtEmployer LiabilityBurden of Proof
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Baker Hall, Inc.

Baker Hall, Inc. initiated a proceeding to annul a State Division of Human Rights determination that found the company unlawfully discriminated against a black employee by terminating him for sleeping on the job, while a white employee received only a suspension for a similar rule violation. The State Division had ordered re-employment and back pay. The court, however, annulled the determination, finding a lack of substantial evidence to support the commissioner's finding of discrimination. The court noted strong evidence that the complainant was indeed asleep on the job multiple times and that his termination was justified, distinguishing his situation from that of the white employee. The matter was remitted to the State Division for further proceedings to assess if Baker Hall's process of handling the charges against the complainant was discriminatory, while rejecting arguments concerning delay and res judicata.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSleeping on the JobRule ViolationDisparate TreatmentHuman Rights LawExecutive LawDue ProcessArbitrator's Findings
References
5
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
Showing 1-10 of 14,525 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