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

Cortes v. City of New York

Plaintiff Frankie Cortes, a former Corrections Officer with the New York City Department of Correction, filed an action alleging retaliation and discrimination based on gender and race under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, 1985, and New York state and city human rights laws. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court dismissed Title VII claims against individual defendants and sex discrimination-based Section 1981 claims with prejudice. The Section 1985 conspiracy claim was dismissed with leave to replead. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss retaliation and racial discrimination claims under Section 1981, as well as First Amendment retaliation and Equal Protection claims under Section 1983. Motions to dismiss based on statute of limitations and exhaustion of remedies for Title VII hostile work environment and SHRL/CHRL claims were also denied, without prejudice to renewal at a later stage.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationGender DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983First AmendmentFourteenth Amendment
References
48
Case No. 06-00-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2001

Jerry Moore D/B/A the Woodville Inn Company v. Lula M. Gilder and Bernice Gilder

Lula Gilder and Bernice Gilder sued Jerry Moore for wrongful termination, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) based on involuntary servitude and retaliation. They claimed they were fired for not working "off the clock." A jury sided with the Gilders, but the trial court's denial of Moore's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was appealed. The appellate court found that the Gilders had abandoned claims of racial discrimination, which are essential for a Section 1981 action. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Moore, concluding that without a showing of purposeful discrimination, the Section 1981 claims could not be sustained.

Wrongful terminationInvoluntary servitudeFLSACivil Rights ActSection 1981RetaliationEmployment lawJury instruction errorAppellate reversalDiscrimination
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2012

James v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

Plaintiff Joseph C. James, an African-American male, commenced this action against Countrywide Financial Corp. and individual supervisors, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation based on race in violation of Title VII, Section 1981, Section 1983, NYHRL, FLSA, and NYLL. He claimed disparate treatment including demotion, unequal compensation, lack of management support, and sabotage of recruiting efforts. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It dismissed Title VII retaliation and hostile work environment claims, NYHRL claims, Section 1983, FLSA, NYLL, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims. Certain Title VII discrimination claims and specific Section 1981 discrimination and retaliation claims were allowed to proceed.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981Motion to DismissUnequal PayHostile Work EnvironmentDemotionFair Labor Standards Act
References
150
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. Kogan

Plaintiffs, two white salespersons (Fernandez and Leggette), sued their former employers, George and Barbara Kogan and Kogan and Company, alleging retaliatory discharge under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state-law breach of contract claims. They claimed they were fired for supporting minority employees who faced discriminatory treatment by the Kogans. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 1981 claims, citing the Supreme Court's Patterson v. McLean Credit Union decision, which limited Section 1981's scope to contract formation and enforcement, not post-formation conduct like retaliatory discharge. Consequently, with the federal claims dismissed, the court declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Retaliatory DischargeCivil Rights Act of 1866Contract FormationEmployment LawFederal JurisdictionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(b)(1)Supreme Court RulingsPost-Contract Conduct
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tardd v. Brookhaven National Laboratory

Malry Tarrd and Otto White sued Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and several individual employees, alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract under Title VII, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. sections 1981, 1985(3), 1986, and the NYSHRL. Plaintiffs described a hostile work environment, racial slurs, a Ku Klux Klan hood incident, and denied promotions. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on various grounds, including failure to state a claim, statute of limitations, and the federal enclave doctrine. The Court partially granted the dismissal motion, notably dismissing certain individual Section 1981 and NYSHRL claims, all Section 1985 and 1986 claims, and most breach of contract claims, while allowing Tardd's breach of settlement agreement claim to proceed. The Court also denied the defendants' motion regarding the federal enclave doctrine and rejected the plaintiffs' request for Rule 11 sanctions.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. Section 1981NYSHRLMotion to DismissJudgment on PleadingsFederal Enclave DoctrineElection of Remedies
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 1993

McNeil v. Aguilos

Juanita McNeil, an English-speaking African-American pro se plaintiff, alleges discrimination by Filipina-American nurses at Bellevue Hospital, including supervisor Marie Aguilos, who she claims spoke Tagalog to isolate, harass, and impede her job performance. McNeil asserts these actions violate Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on procedural issues, while McNeil cross-moved for summary judgment on the substance of her claims. The court partially granted defendants' motion, dismissing certain Section 1981 claims and state law claims against Bellevue Hospital for procedural deficiencies, but allowed Title VII claims and some Section 1981 promotion-related claims to proceed. Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was entirely denied due to the presence of genuine issues of material fact regarding her discrimination and retaliation allegations. The court also dismissed several other statutory claims made by the plaintiff as legally deficient.

Workplace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationLanguage DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentPro Se PlaintiffContinuing Violation DoctrineRetaliationConstructive Discharge
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 1998

Cataudella v. Kings Bay Housing Section II, Inc.

Plaintiff Alfred Cataudella sought damages for personal injuries, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants Kings Bay Housing Section II, Inc., and Elm Management Co. moved for summary judgment to dismiss this claim, which was initially granted but later denied by the Supreme Court upon the plaintiffs' successful motion for renewal and reargument. On appeal, the higher court modified the lower court's decision, ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply as the plaintiff's injuries were not from an elevation-related hazard. Consequently, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs' motion for renewal and reargument, thus effectively granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Furthermore, the third-party defendant Walcat Plumbing and Heating Corp.'s motion to vacate an order of default was affirmed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppealLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-Related HazardDefault JudgmentVacate DefaultProcedural LawNew York LawAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02008 [237 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Hartrum v. Montefiore Hosp. Hous. Section II Inc.

Plaintiff Kyle Hartrum, an employee of Electronic Service Solutions, Inc. (ESS), sustained severe arm lacerations while removing communications equipment from a building roof owned by Montefiore Hospital Housing Section II Inc. The accident occurred when a piece of sheet metal being hand-hoisted swung and struck him. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's decision, granting Hartrum summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Monte Housing, SBA Site Management, LLC, Flo TV Incorporated, and KMB Design Group, LLC. The court also dismissed Hartrum's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against all defendants and granted several contractual indemnity claims among the parties, including Montefiore, SBA, Flo, KMB, and ESS.

Labor Law § 240(1) LiabilitySafe Place to WorkSummary Judgment GrantContractual IndemnificationConstruction Site AccidentHoisting SafetyAppellate Division ReviewLessor/Sublessor LiabilityMeans and Methods of WorkNegligence Dismissal
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 5,173 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