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

Jackson v. Cassellas

In a sex discrimination case that resulted in a successful settlement for the plaintiff, Ms. Jackson, her attorney, William A. Price, Esq., sought an award for attorney fees and expenses. The defendant, EEOC, objected to the fee application due to concerns about the hourly rate, lack of contemporaneous records, and vague work descriptions. Presiding Judge Curtin, after considering the complexities of the case, Mr. Price's integrity, and the issues with document production, determined that a 15% reduction for vagueness and record-keeping deficiencies was warranted. However, the court also awarded a 10% bonus for the excellent results achieved and the difficulties encountered, resulting in a net 5% reduction. The final award for attorney fees was $291,405.85, with an additional $14,785.77 reimbursed for costs.

Attorney FeesSex DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1991Lodestar MethodHourly Rate CalculationContemporaneous RecordsVagueness of RecordsFee ReductionFee EnhancementSettlement Agreement
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beattie v. Farnsworth Middle School

Plaintiff Patricia Beattie, a part-time paraprofessional, filed a sex discrimination action against the Guilderland Central School District and several individual defendants, alleging sexual harassment by Roger Levinthal and retaliation after she reported the harassment. The court addressed motions to dismiss, finding that the sexual harassment claims were largely time-barred under Title VII due to the continuing violation exception not applying, and employer liability for co-worker harassment was not established for the physical acts. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim, finding sufficient facts to support a prima facie case. Individual defendants' motions to dismiss for individual liability under HRL and Section 1983 were granted, except for Roger Levinthal. The Section 1985 conspiracy claim was also dismissed for lack of specific discriminatory animus.

Sexual harassmentRetaliationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSection 1983Continuing violation doctrineHostile work environmentEmployer liabilityIndividual liabilityPrima facie case
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1997

Murphy v. ERA United Realty

The case concerns a plaintiff suing ERA United Realty, Petee Realty, Peter Orisses, and Nick Kavourgias for sex and national origin discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, finding factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's employment status as an independent contractor or employee. The appellate court modified this decision, granting summary judgment for defendant Nick Kavourgias on the first cause of action (Executive Law § 296 (1) (a)) due to his limited role. However, it affirmed the denial of dismissal for other claims, including those under the Administrative Code and for aiding and abetting under Executive Law § 296 (6), recognizing coemployee liability under these provisions when acting in concert with an employer.

Sex DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationIndependent Contractor vs EmployeeSummary JudgmentExecutive LawAdministrative CodeAiding and AbettingCoemployee Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porter v. Texaco, Inc.

Plaintiff Mona C. Porter filed an action against her employer, Texaco, Inc., alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. The core issue was whether Porter's sex discrimination claims were jurisdictionally sound, given that her EEOC charge only cited age discrimination and retaliation for participating in a class action, without alleging sex discrimination. The court determined that Porter's sex discrimination claims were not included in or reasonably related to her EEOC charge under any of the three established criteria (retaliation for filing EEOC charge, further incidents of discrimination in the same manner, or within the scope of a reasonable EEOC investigation). Furthermore, the retaliation claims in her Title VII complaint were also deemed not reasonably related to her EEOC charge due to differing conduct and forms of alleged retaliation. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction over the Title VII sex discrimination claim, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of all federal claims. The supplemental state law claims were subsequently dismissed without prejudice.

Sex DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIEEOC ExhaustionSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionHuman Rights LawEmployment LawDiscrimination Claim
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mendelsohn v. University Hospital

Barry Mendelsohn sued University Hospital and Dennis Sheppard for retaliation and discrimination. He alleged Sheppard failed to promote him in retaliation for union complaints, violating 42 U.S.C. § 1988. He also claimed the Hospital discriminated based on sex and retaliated by removing teaching duties after he filed a sex discrimination charge, violating Title VII and NYHRL. Defendants moved to dismiss. The court granted dismissal of the § 1983 retaliation claim against Sheppard and the Title VII sex discrimination claim (with leave to amend regarding qualification), and the NYHRL claims. However, the court denied dismissal of the Title VII retaliation claim against the Hospital, finding that diminished teaching responsibilities constituted an adverse employment action.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISex DiscriminationFailure to PromoteAdverse Employment ActionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)42 U.S.C. Section 1983First AmendmentMotion to Dismiss
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2007

Heinemann v. Howe & Rusling

Plaintiff Marion Heinemann sued her former employer, Howe & Rusling, Inc., and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as retaliation and Equal Pay Act violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied summary judgment for the plaintiff's Title VII claims (sex discrimination and retaliation) and the Equal Pay Act claim, finding sufficient evidence of pretext and discriminatory intent to warrant a jury trial. However, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims, concluding that the plaintiff failed to present enough evidence for these specific allegations. The case will proceed to trial on the sex discrimination, retaliation, and Equal Pay Act claims.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationEqual Pay ActSummary Judgment MotionFederal CourtWestern District of New YorkWorkplace HarassmentPerformance ManagementAdverse Employment Action
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKinney v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Barbara M. McKinney, a pro se plaintiff, sued Eastman Kodak Co. for employment discrimination. She later moved to amend her complaint to include claims for age discrimination under ADEA and New York State Human Rights Law, sex discrimination under Title VII, FMLA violations, and retaliation under ADEA. The court partially granted and partially denied the motion. The court denied leave to amend for sex discrimination, FMLA violations, and the disparate impact theory of age discrimination, finding them not reasonably related to her original EEOC complaint. The motion was granted only to allow McKinney to restate her disparate treatment age discrimination claim and her retaliation claim under the ADEA, specifically for events occurring on or after April 28, 1995, while denying claims based on earlier events that did not constitute a continuing violation.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationDisparate TreatmentMotion to Amend ComplaintEEOC ExhaustionContinuing Violation DoctrineEmployment LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15Title VIIADEA
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Advanced Digital Information Corp.

Plaintiff Lucinda Allen filed suit against her former employer, Advanced Digital Information Corporation (ADIC), alleging sex-based hostile work environment, unequal pay under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), gender-based discrimination under Title VII and NYHRL, and retaliatory termination. ADIC moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted ADIC's motion regarding Allen's hostile work environment and EPA claims, finding the former lacked sufficient severity or pervasiveness and the latter had been abandoned. However, the court denied summary judgment on Allen's sex discrimination and retaliation claims, concluding that material questions of fact remained regarding ADIC's discriminatory intent and the causal link between Allen's protected activities and her termination. Consequently, the sex discrimination and retaliation claims will proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEqual Pay ActNew York State Human Rights LawWorkplace HarassmentGender Discrimination
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jirak v. Federal Express Corp.

Plaintiff Patricia Jirak, a part-time courier for Federal Express Corporation, was terminated due to a poor attendance record. She subsequently filed a sex discrimination lawsuit, alleging violations of Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Equal Pay Act, claiming her termination stemmed from discrimination, unequal pay compared to male counterparts, mental anguish, and defamation. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence of sex discrimination as the attendance policy was applied uniformly. It also determined that menstrual cramps are not a protected medical condition under the PDA, and dismissed the Equal Pay Act claim due to lack of evidence, while other claims were abandoned.

Sex DiscriminationTitle VIIPregnancy Discrimination ActEqual Pay ActSummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationAttendance PolicyDisparate TreatmentFederal ExpressPatricia Jirak
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Siegel v. Board of Educ. of City of New York

Plaintiffs, elementary school principals, filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the New York City School Board. They claimed that the wage differential between elementary and high school principals constituted gender discrimination. The defendant, the Board of Education, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the class was predominantly male and thus failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and that the wage differential was based on factors other than sex. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. It found no evidence of intentional wage discrimination and supported the defense that higher compensation for high school principals was due to greater responsibilities.

Title VIISex DiscriminationWage DifferentialElementary School PrincipalsHigh School PrincipalsSummary JudgmentEqual Pay ActBennett AmendmentPublic EducationGender Discrimination
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,637 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