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

Morales v. Ellen

This appeal concerns the application of the Texas Open Records Act (TORA) regarding the disclosure of investigative records pertaining to sexual harassment allegations against John Ellen, a former police lieutenant. The Attorney General challenged a trial court's decision that withheld the names and detailed statements of witnesses, citing privacy concerns, while ordering the release of Ellen's affidavit and the police board's findings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, balancing the public's right to information about government affairs against the privacy rights of individuals involved in intimate and embarrassing sexual harassment investigations. It concluded that disclosing witness identities would discourage future reporting and cooperation, thereby upholding the privacy exemption under TORA.

Texas Open Records ActTORASexual HarassmentPrivacy RightsInvestigative RecordsGovernment TransparencyWitness ProtectionPublic OfficialsEctor CountyAppellate Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2018

Holmes v. N. Tex. Health Care Laundry Coop. Ass'n

Christina Holmes, a former customer service representative, sued her employer, North Texas Health Care Laundry Cooperative Association (NTHCL), alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, and various state law claims. Holmes claimed that NTHCL's general manager, David Hernandez, subjected her to unwelcome sexual advances. The court granted NTHCL's motion for summary judgment, finding that Holmes failed to present sufficient evidence that the sexual conduct was unwelcome, citing numerous sexually explicit emails initiated by Holmes. Additionally, the court ruled that NTHCL successfully established the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense by demonstrating it had an anti-harassment policy and took prompt corrective action by forcing Hernandez's resignation upon learning of the affair. All of Holmes's claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary JudgmentEllerth-Faragher Affirmative DefenseEmployment DiscriminationUnwelcome Sexual AdvancesRetaliation ClaimAbandoned ClaimsEvidentiary Objections
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 1996

In re Keisha McL.

This case involves an order of disposition from the Family Court, Bronx County, entered on July 31, 1996. The order placed the subject children with the Commissioner for the Administration of Children’s Services for 12 months and directed their foster care agency to commence a termination of parental rights proceeding. This action was taken based on a fact-finding determination that the respondent had sexually abused two of the children. The children's out-of-court statements regarding the abuse were cross-corroborated by each other and further supported by consistent repetitions to their foster mother, a psychologist, and a social worker. Expert testimony confirmed the children's knowledge of sexual acts and symptomatic behavioral changes. The court inferred that the touching was for sexual gratification due to the absence of an innocent explanation. The order was unanimously affirmed.

Child Sexual AbuseFamily CourtTermination of Parental RightsChild WelfareExpert TestimonyCorroborated StatementsChild Protection ServicesDispositional OrderSexual Gratification InferenceBehavioral Changes
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2009

In re Selena R.

The Family Court of Bronx County issued an order of disposition finding a father guilty of sexually abusing his son, Tyler T., derivatively abusing Selena R., and neglecting both children. The court released the children to the mother's custody under strict supervision and restricted the father's contact with them. The appellate court modified the order, vacating the finding of neglect due to excessive corporal punishment, but affirmed the remaining aspects of the decision. The sexual abuse finding was corroborated by a social worker's testimony detailing the children's symptomatic behavior, including age-inappropriate sexual knowledge. However, the claim of excessive corporal punishment was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

sexual abusechild neglectderivative abusecorporal punishmentfamily court lawappellate procedureevidence sufficiencysocial worker testimonychild welfareparental rights
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Krasner v. HSH NORDBANK AG

Plaintiff David Krasner sued his former employer, HSH Nordbank AG, and supervisor, Roland Kiser, alleging sexual discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, along with state law claims for breach of contract and unpaid bonus. Krasner claimed a hostile work environment due to widespread sexual favoritism, Kiser's alleged affair with a subordinate (Melissa Campfield), and Kiser's sexually offensive conduct. The court dismissed the Title VII discrimination claim, ruling that Krasner was not discriminated against based on his sex, but rather because Kiser preferred his paramour, which is not prohibited by Title VII. The retaliation claim was also dismissed because Krasner's internal complaints focused on ethics violations and departmental issues, not gender discrimination, meaning HSH was not reasonably aware of a protected activity. Given the dismissal of all federal claims, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

sexual discriminationretaliationhostile work environmentparamour preferenceTitle VIINYSHRLNYCHRLmotion to dismissfederal civil procedureprotected activity
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1995

In re Najam M.

The Family Court's dismissal of a child abuse petition, brought by the Commissioner of Social Services and the Law Guardian for Najam M. against her respondent father, was reversed on appeal. The appellate court reinstated the petition and entered a finding of sexual abuse, remanding the case for further proceedings. Expert medical testimony from Dr. Jamie Hoffman Rosenfeld, a child abuse specialist, detailed physical abnormalities in the child consistent with chronic manipulation and sexual abuse, which she affirmed could not be self-inflicted. The child's consistent allegations of abuse by her father, made to multiple individuals, further supported the medical findings. The court determined that the petitioner had established a prima facie case of child abuse, which the parents' explanation failed to rebut.

Child AbuseSexual AbuseFamily CourtAppellate ReversalExpert Medical TestimonyHymenal InjuryPrima Facie CaseBurden of ProofChild InterviewParental Explanation Rebuttal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nghiem v. United States Department of Veteran Affairs

Plaintiff, an Asian-American geriatric dentist, alleged racial and ethnic discrimination and other torts following her 1993 termination from the Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Bronx, New York. She sued the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and four individual supervisors. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as time-barred. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing all federal claims, including those under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title VII, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationWrongful TerminationCivil RightsDue ProcessStatute of LimitationsSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissFederal EmploymentVeterans Affairs
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Guce

The defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of rape, sodomy, sexual abuse, incest, and endangering the welfare of a child. The appeal challenged the Supreme Court's decision to allow the child victims to testify via live, two-way, closed-circuit television, with the defendant remaining outside the room, citing their vulnerability and potential for severe emotional harm. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that these procedures were constitutional and supported by clear and convincing evidence of extraordinary circumstances and the children's vulnerability. The court also found no error in allowing sworn and unsworn testimony, the use of anatomically correct dolls, or the admissibility of expert testimony regarding child sexual abuse syndrome, distinguishing the case from previous rulings.

Child Sexual AbuseVulnerable WitnessesConfrontation ClauseClosed-Circuit Television TestimonyWitness TraumaAppellate ReviewSixth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentExpert TestimonyPosttraumatic Stress Syndrome
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swift v. Swift

This case involves an appeal by the petitioner-mother from a Family Court order in Broome County, which granted the respondent-father unsupervised visitation rights with their two children. The petitioner alleged sexual abuse of their daughter, Sarah, by the respondent, leading to a temporary order for supervised visitation. Despite two reports to the State Child Abuse Hotline, which were deemed unfounded after investigation, the petitioner sought termination of visitation. The Family Court ultimately found that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof regarding the sexual abuse allegations, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court deferred to the trial court's credibility findings and its reasons for rejecting corroborating "validation evidence," noting concerns about the petitioner's influence, the social worker's inexperience, and the context of contested custody litigation.

Child VisitationSexual Abuse AllegationsCredibility FindingsHearsay CorroborationValidation EvidenceAppellate ReviewFamily Court OrderParental HostilityChild Custody LitigationExpert Testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,062 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