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. 11 Misc 3d 739
Regular Panel Decision

Farrugia v. North Shore University Hospital

Plaintiff Thomas Farrugia, a white male lab technologist at North Shore University Hospital, filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and national origin discrimination under New York State and New York City Human Rights laws. The plaintiff asserted claims of sexual harassment by a female coworker and discrimination based on his national origin. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing the gender discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation claims. However, the sexual harassment claims were allowed to proceed, with evidence limited to conduct occurring from January 2000 onward under the continuing discrimination doctrine.

sexual harassmentnational origin discriminationgender discriminationhostile work environmentretaliationsummary judgmentNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Lawcontinuing violation doctrineemployment discrimination
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parry v. Tompkins County

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stouter v. Smithtown Central School District

Maura Olga Stouter, a Caucasian, 59-year-old lesbian woman, was employed by Smithtown Central School District as a physical education teacher and volleyball coach. After retiring as a teacher in 2003, she continued coaching. In 2006, she was not reappointed as varsity girls volleyball coach, which she alleges was due to discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, age, and retaliation for her Title IX compliance concerns. The court granted summary judgment to Smithtown on claims including Title VII sexual orientation discrimination, gender discrimination (disparate treatment) under Title VII and NYHRL, age discrimination under ADEA and NYHRL, ADEA retaliation, and Title IX gender discrimination. However, the court denied summary judgment on claims for hostile work environment (gender), sexual orientation discrimination (NYHRL), and retaliation (Title VII, Title IX, NYHRL), which will proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexual Orientation DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIADEATitle IXNew York Human Rights Law
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simonton v. Runyon

The plaintiff, a male homosexual and former employee of the United States Postal Service, filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination and a hostile work environment based on his sexual orientation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Title VII does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court, citing established precedent and an interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., concluded that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not considered discrimination "based upon sex" under Title VII. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, affirming that while the alleged conduct was offensive, Title VII did not provide a legal remedy for the plaintiff's claim.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIMotion to DismissFederal CourtPrecedentStatutory InterpretationCivil RightsEmployment Discrimination
References
15
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

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

Martin v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

David Martin, an admitted homosexual and correction officer at Coxsackie Correctional Facility, filed a civil action against the Law Enforcement Officers Union Council 82 AFSCME AFL — CIO. He alleged sexual discrimination, retaliation, conspiracy to discriminate under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, Title VII, and New York state law, and breach of duty of fair representation by the Union. Martin claimed he experienced persistent homophobic harassment from co-workers, discriminatory treatment by supervisors, and inadequate representation from the Union regarding his grievances. The Court granted the Union's motion for summary judgment on the sexual discrimination (Title VII/HRL) and conspiracy claims, ruling that sexual orientation is not a protected class under current law for these claims. However, the Court denied the Union's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claims and partially denied it for the breach of duty of fair representation claims, allowing several of Martin's timely grievances to proceed to trial.

Sexual DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentDuty of Fair RepresentationLabor UnionSexual Orientation DiscriminationGender StereotypingSummary JudgmentCivil Rights ActNew York Human Rights Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arredondo v. Estrada

Plaintiffs, Ricardo Arredondo, Jr., Richard Rabino, and Mario Torrez, all former employees of Weatherford International, LLC, filed suit for damages arising out of abusive treatment and sexual harassment by their supervisor, Joey Estrada. The abuse included physical assaults, referred to as “nubbings,” and demeaning vulgarities. Plaintiffs brought federal claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination based upon sex, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation, as well as state law claims for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention against Weatherford. The Court granted Weatherford’s motion for summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, and negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention claims. The Court denied summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Title VII sex discrimination (including sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge) and assault claims, ordering them to proceed to trial. The decision addressed issues of administrative remedies exhaustion, the “continuing violation” theory for limitations, proof of sex discrimination in same-sex harassment cases (including gender stereotyping), the severity and pervasiveness of the conduct, Weatherford’s Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense, constructive discharge, and employer liability for assault (including course and scope and ratification theories), as well as the application of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy bar.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationAssault and BatteryRetaliation ClaimConstructive DischargeEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Act
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sowemimo v. D.A.O.R. Security, Inc.

Plaintiff Debrah Sowemimo sued D.A.O.R. Security, Inc., her supervisor Mohammed Islam, the NYC Department of Homeless Services (DHS), and Deputy Director Leandra Barbieri, alleging employment discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliatory discharge, racial discrimination, negligence, and intentional torts. Sowemimo claimed Islam sexually harassed and assaulted her, and Barbieri made racial slurs. The court denied summary judgment for D.A.O.R. on sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge claims, and for Islam on sexual harassment and intentional torts. However, summary judgment was granted for DHS and Barbieri on all claims, and for D.A.O.R. on negligence and intentional torts, finding DHS was not Sowemimo's employer and D.A.O.R.'s conduct didn't meet the threshold for emotional distress.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliatory DischargeRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawEmployer LiabilityVicarious Liability
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sarff v. Continental Express

Plaintiff Mark David Sarff filed a lawsuit against Continental Express, alleging employment discrimination and wrongful termination under Title VII, specifically claiming retaliation for sexual harassment complaints and gender-based discrimination. Sarff, a customer service agent, had a documented history of customer complaints regarding his behavior, leading to several warnings and a final termination notice in September 1993. Following this, Sarff reported alleged sexual harassment. However, after a company seminar on harassment, Sarff engaged in highly inappropriate sexual conduct with a female supervisor, Barbara Fondry, which was reported and led to his termination on November 12, 1993. The Court granted summary judgment for Continental, finding that Sarff's complaints were not protected under Title VII, which does not cover sexual orientation or male-on-male harassment, and that his termination was a legitimate response to his documented misconduct and not discriminatory.

Employment DiscriminationWrongful TerminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentRetaliatory DischargeDisparate TreatmentSummary JudgmentWorkplace MisconductSexual Orientation DiscriminationCustomer Complaints
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 3,097 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