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

Moskowitz v. Board of Elections

The petitioner, an orthodox observer of Jewish Sabbaths and religious holidays, sought an order to compel the Board of Elections of the City of New York to accept signatures for his independent nominating petition after the statutory deadline of September 21, 1966. He argued that religious observances prevented him and his campaign workers from collecting signatures for 8 days, requesting additional time. The court found this argument "specious," noting that 42 days were allotted, and the petitioner only obtained 99 signatures in the remaining 32 days. The petitioner's secondary argument, challenging the constitutionality of requiring 3,000 signatures for independent candidates versus 750 for party candidates, was also rejected, citing prior case law that upheld the distinction. Consequently, the court denied the application and dismissed the petition.

Election LawIndependent CandidateNominating PetitionsSignature RequirementsReligious ObservanceStatutory DeadlinesConstitutional ChallengeJudicial DiscretionCandidate EligibilityBoard of Elections
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schweizer Aircraft Corp. v. State Division of Human Rights

This appeal concerns the interpretation of Executive Law § 296 (10)(c), which prohibits employment discrimination based on sabbath observance unless it causes undue economic hardship to the employer. James Amrhein, a Seventh Day Adventist, was denied a machine operator position at Schweizer Aircraft Corporation because he could not work Friday evenings. The employer claimed accommodation was unworkable without attempting to contact other employees or the union. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, reinstating the Human Rights Appeal Board's determination that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving undue economic hardship, as it did not make a good faith effort to accommodate Amrhein's religious practice before denying employment.

DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceReligious AccommodationExecutive LawUndue Economic HardshipCollective Bargaining AgreementBurden of ProofShift ExchangeGood Faith EffortEmployment Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crider v. UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE

Kimberly Crider, a Seventh Day Adventist, sued the University of Tennessee under Title VII, alleging failure to accommodate her religious beliefs. Crider, a Coordinator in the Programs Abroad Office, was unable to work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday due to her observance of the Sabbath, which conflicted with her job requirement to monitor an emergency cell phone and participate in weekend events. The University attempted to find accommodations but concluded that doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business or other employees. The court found that Crider established a prima facie case of religious discrimination, but the University successfully demonstrated that no reasonable accommodation could be made without undue hardship. Therefore, the court granted the University's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

Religious DiscriminationTitle VIIFailure to AccommodateSeventh Day AdventistSabbath ObservanceSummary JudgmentUndue HardshipEmergency ProtocolCoordinator PositionUniversity Employment
References
21
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. 15-cv-4357 (PAC)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cory Chavis, an Asset Protection Manager at a Walmart in Suffern, New York, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Chavis sought a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays due to her Sabbath observance. While initially requiring her to use vacation days, Walmart later granted her accommodation. Chavis subsequently claimed a hostile work environment and discriminatory denial of seventeen promotions. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims of failure to accommodate and hostile work environment, as well as most promotion claims. However, it denied summary judgment on Chavis's retaliation claim and promotion claims for specific MAPM and ASM positions, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSabbath AccommodationWalmartEmployment LawNew York Law
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 1992

Gordon v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.

Shari Shapiro Gordon, an Orthodox Jewish woman, filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against MCI Telecommunications Corp. under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Gordon alleged that MCI refused to hire her for a Staff Assistant position due to her need to leave work early on Fridays during the fall and winter for Sabbath observance. MCI moved for summary judgment, contending that Gordon failed to establish a prima facie case and that accommodating her religious practices would impose an undue hardship. The court denied MCI's motion, finding that Gordon had presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude a prima facie case of discrimination. Furthermore, MCI's claims of undue hardship were deemed speculative, lacking concrete evidence regarding actual operational disruptions or financial burdens. The case will proceed to trial.

Religious DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSabbath ObservanceUndue HardshipReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseFederal District Court
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Meyerovich

The claimant, a maintenance technician, was discharged for misconduct after his manager observed him loafing on the job and he subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim for a back injury, which the employer alleged was false. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits due to misconduct, a decision it adhered to upon reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the manager's testimony that she did not observe the claimant using a shovel during her observation, thus supporting the finding of a false workers' compensation claim and misconduct. The court also noted that conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve and that prior Workers' Compensation Board decisions were not final regarding the accidental injury issue, thus lacking collateral estoppel effect.

MisconductUnemployment Insurance BenefitsFalse Workers' Compensation ClaimSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueDischarge from EmploymentLoafingProbationAppeal Board DecisionAffirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Byfield v. Chapman

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated a lawsuit against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was subjected to a beating on February 16, 2011, which he claims led to him observing blood in his urine five days later. Defendants subsequently filed a Motion in Limine, seeking to prevent the plaintiff from testifying about his observation of blood in his urine without expert medical testimony to establish causation. Defendants argued that the injury was complex and cited their own expert's opinion attributing the bleeding to benign prostatic hypertrophy. The court, after reviewing arguments and relevant case law, denied the defendants' motion, ruling that the observation of blood in urine following a beating is not an injury so complex that a lay jury cannot assess causation based on common knowledge and the presented evidence, including conflicting expert opinions.

Motion in LimineExpert TestimonyCausationLay Witness Testimony42 U.S.C. § 1983Prison OfficialsPhysical InjuryBlood in UrineFederal Rules of EvidencePro Se Plaintiff
References
12
Case No. 07-04-0304-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2005

State v. Andrew Bennett Lockhart

The State appealed the trial court's order granting Andrew Bennett Lockhart's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop. Department of Public Safety trooper Chris Ecker stopped Lockhart after observing his vehicle's right tires cross the solid white line on Interstate 40. Following a warning citation and a consensual vehicle search, marijuana was discovered, leading to Lockhart's prosecution. The trial court initially granted the motion to suppress, citing Ecker's 'hunch' and lack of observed criminal offense prior to the stop. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, deferring to the trial court's factual finding that Lockhart did cross the fog line, which provided probable cause for the traffic stop under the Texas Transportation Code. The court emphasized that an officer's subjective motive does not invalidate an objectively reasonable stop based on an observed traffic violation.

traffic stopmotion to suppressprobable causereasonable suspicionTexas Transportation Codedriving on improved shoulderappellate reviewjudicial discretioncredibility of witnessessearch and seizure
References
57
Case No. ADJ6830729
Regular
Apr 21, 2010

ALFONSO ESCOBAR vs. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, GALLAGHER BASSETT RANCHO CUCAMONGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order suspending action was not a final order. However, the Board treated the filing as a Petition for Removal, granted it, and rescinded the judge's order suspending action. This action allows the matter to return to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the defendant's Petition to Compel Deposition. The WCJ's observation that the deponent should not be deposed again was clarified as merely an observation, not a binding ruling.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Suspending ActionPetition to Compel DepositionProof of ServiceProof of NoticeDue ProcessAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFinal Order
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 259 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