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

Hotel Greystone Corp. v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council

This case involves a petition by Hotel Greystone to stay an arbitration initiated by the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO (the "Union"). The dispute arose from an arbitrator's decision to reconsider a previous award, which the Hotel opposed based on timeliness and the doctrine of functus officio. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kaplan, denied the Hotel's motion for a permanent stay of arbitration. The court found that the Union's cross-motion to compel arbitration was timely under the National Labor Relations Act and that the doctrine of functus officio did not apply due to the parties' agreement. Furthermore, the court determined that New York's CPLR time constraints for modification of awards did not bar reconsideration given the contractual provisions. Consequently, the Union's cross-motion to compel arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLMRANLRAFunctus OfficioReconsideration of AwardStay of ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationLabor LawContract Interpretation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Godineaux v. Laguardia Airport Marriott Hotel

Plaintiff Edwin Godineaux, a former employee of the LaGuardia Marriott Hotel, sued the hotel and Marriott Int’l, Inc. for creating a hostile work environment due to discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, marital status, and race, as well as retaliation for complaining about discrimination. He alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker and claimed his subsequent disciplinary actions and termination were pretextual and retaliatory. The court, applying Title VII standards to the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, found that the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile work environment, and that the employer took appropriate remedial action. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between his protected activity and termination, and that the defendants provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his disciplinary actions and termination, which the plaintiff failed to prove were pretextual. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was closed.

Hostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationNYSHRL ClaimsNYCHRL ClaimsTitle VII StandardsObjective Hostile EnvironmentSubjective Hostile Environment
References
19
Case No. 94 Civ. 2336
Regular Panel Decision

Mohamed v. Marriott International, Inc.

Ahmed Mohamed, a profoundly deaf individual, sued Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Corporation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law for wrongful discharge. Marriott moved for summary judgment, arguing Mohamed should be judicially estopped from asserting an ADA claim because he had previously applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (SSDI), stating he was unable to work. The court denied Marriott's motion. It ruled that judicial estoppel was inappropriate given the differing legal standards between ADA and SSDI, the nature of SSDI administrative determinations (paper application for a listed disability), and the policy goals of the ADA which encourage disabled individuals to seek employment. The court found ample evidence that Mohamed was able to perform the essential functions of his job.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Judicial EstoppelSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationSocial Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)New York State Human Rights LawEmployment LawQualified Individual with a DisabilityReasonable AccommodationDeafness
References
32
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04220
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2024

Spina v. Browning Hotel Props., LLC

The plaintiff, Kaitlyn Spina, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss her complaint and denied her cross-motion for leave to amend. Spina sought damages for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision after allegedly being sexually assaulted by a hotel employee at a property owned and operated by the defendants, Browning Hotel Properties, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying Spina's cross-motion to amend, as the proposed amendments were not palpably insufficient. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, as the proposed amended complaint sufficiently pleaded causes of action for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The order was reversed, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend was granted.

negligent hiringnegligent retentionnegligent supervisionsexual assaulthotel liabilityleave to amend complaintmotion to dismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)CPLR 3025 (b)Appellate Procedure
References
10
Case No. ADJ2891866 (SFO 0502133)
Regular
Jan 18, 2013

JULIO PAIZ vs. SAN RAMON MARRIOTT HOTEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the original award for industrial injury to the applicant's right hand, psyche, and internal system, resulting in 45% permanent disability. The Board amended the decision to allow attorney's fees, awarding $6,142.00 to the applicant's former attorney and $2,000.00 to his current attorney for their respective services. The original award of 45% permanent disability was maintained as substantial evidence supported the agreed medical examiners' opinions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Ramon Marriott HotelJulio Paizindustrial injuryright hand injurypsyche injuryinternal system injurypermanent disabilitymedical treatmentagreed medical examiners
References
5
Case No. ADJ9438375
Regular
Dec 15, 2016

MARIA FALCON vs. MARRIOTT HOTEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, amending the original decision. The Board found that the defendant's Marriott Hotel failed to provide the applicant with timely medical treatment within their Medical Provider Network (MPN). Applicant attempted to designate five different MPN physicians, but each refused to treat her. This repeated failure constitutes a denial of care, entitling the applicant to seek treatment outside the MPN at the defendant's expense.

Medical Provider NetworkMPN denialOut-of-network treatmentAccess standardsPrimary treating physicianPhysician availabilityLabor Code section 4600Labor Code section 4616Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Award
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pitta v. Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp.

Vito J. Pitta, as president of the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, sought to vacate or remand an arbitrator's award in a dispute with ten New York City hotels. The dispute arose when hotels docked wages of room attendants who willfully "dropped" rooms as part of a partial work stoppage. The Impartial Chairman upheld the hotels' action. Pitta challenged the award, arguing it exceeded the arbitrator's authority and violated New York Labor Law section 193. The court denied Pitta's motion for summary judgment and granted the hotels' cross-motion, affirming the arbitration award. It found the arbitrator acted within his authority and that federal labor law preempts the state law regarding employer-employee economic self-help in collective bargaining.

Arbitration AwardSummary JudgmentLabor DisputeWage DockingWork StoppageCollective BargainingFederal PreemptionNew York Labor LawLabor-Management Relations ActJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 1986

Pitta v. Hotel Ass'n of New York City, Inc.

The plaintiff, Vito J. Pitta, President of the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and defendant Hotel Association of New York City, Inc., both moved for summary judgment concerning a June 25, 1986 arbitration award issued by defendant Millard Cass, the Impartial Chairman. The Council sought to vacate the award and compel the selection of a new chairman, while the Association aimed to confirm and enforce it. The court found that the Council had the right to unilaterally terminate Cass's term, effective sixty days after notice was given on June 2, 1986. Consequently, the court vacated the arbitration award, ruling that Cass's conclusions were contrary to the court's earlier findings of fact. The Association was directed to participate in selecting a successor chairman, with the order becoming effective on August 29, 1986, to allow for appeal.

ArbitrationLabor Management Relations ActFederal Arbitration ActImpartial ChairmanCollective Bargaining AgreementContract InterpretationEmployment at WillRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
16
Case No. ADJ6953675
Regular
Aug 06, 2015

HOA DOAN vs. SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOL INSURANCE GROUP

In *Doan v. San Ramon Valley Unified School District*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, exceeding the jurisdictional 25-day deadline. The WCAB emphasized that a petition must be *received* by the WCAB within the statutory period, not just mailed. Therefore, the Board lacked the authority to consider the merits of the late petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ DecisionProof of MailingCase DismissalLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsWCAB Rule
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,106 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