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

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
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

Wilson v. Wayne County

Wendy Lee Wilson and Stevie Burns initiated a Title VII action against Sheriff Leon Nutt, alleging sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge. Ms. Wilson, a dispatcher, accused Sheriff Nutt of sexual harassment, which culminated in a non-consensual sexual encounter. Mr. Burns, a deputy, claimed he was terminated in retaliation for his opposition to the harassment of Ms. Wilson. The Court found that Sheriff Nutt did sexually harass Ms. Wilson and retaliate against Mr. Burns. However, the Court concluded that Title VII does not allow suits against individual defendants in their individual capacities, leading to the dismissal of the action with prejudice.

Sexual harassmentRetaliatory dischargeTitle VIIEmployment discriminationQuid pro quo harassmentHostile work environmentIndividual liabilityAgent liabilityEmployer liabilityQualified immunity
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharp v. City of Houston

Plaintiff Patrice Sharp, an officer with the Houston Police Department, filed claims of sexual discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for "pervasive departmental misconduct" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Houston and several individuals. Sharp alleged frequent sexual harassment by her supervisors, Bice and Hankins, including offensive jokes, lewd comments, and inappropriate physical contact, which was corroborated by other officers. She also claimed retaliation after reporting the harassment, experiencing ostracism, sabotage of equipment, and lack of assistance. The court granted summary judgment on Sharp's Title VII retaliation claim and her Fourteenth Amendment § 1983 claim against the City, finding the alleged retaliatory actions did not constitute "ultimate employment decisions" under Title VII and that there was no policy or custom of sexual harassment for the §1983 claim. However, summary judgment was denied for Sharp's Title VII sexual harassment claim and her First Amendment § 1983 retaliation claim, citing existing fact issues regarding the pervasive nature of harassment and whether the alleged campaign of reprisal was severe enough to violate her First Amendment rights.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1983Hostile Work EnvironmentEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentPolice MisconductMunicipal LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
100
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02579 [193 AD3d 1305]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Matter of New York Off. for People with Dev.al Disabilities (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO)

The New York Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (petitioner) sought to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated employee Chad Dominie, who was found to have sexually harassed a coworker. The arbitrator had ordered Dominie's reinstatement despite sustaining multiple charges of sexual harassment, citing mitigating factors. Supreme Court granted the petition, vacating the award and remitting for a new penalty before a different arbitrator. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that the arbitrator's unconditional reinstatement of Dominie violated the strong public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court emphasized the egregious and escalating nature of Dominie's conduct, concluding that the award failed to protect other employees and conflicted with the employer's obligation to eliminate sexual harassment.

Sexual HarassmentWorkplace SafetyArbitration ReviewPublic Policy ViolationEmployee MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsReinstatement OrderAppellate Court DecisionCollective BargainingEmployer Responsibility
References
9
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.

The plaintiff, Laurie Reed, commenced employment with Cracker Barrel in Crossville, Tennessee, in February 1996 and was terminated on January 8, 1998. She alleges that her supervisor, Kirk Hooper, subjected her to severe and pervasive sexual harassment, which ceased after she confronted him in October 1997. Subsequently, Hooper allegedly retaliated against Reed by altering her work schedule and assignments, culminating in her termination on January 8, 1998, for allegedly giving free drinks to a customer. The court granted Cracker Barrel's motion for summary judgment on Reed's quid pro quo sexual harassment claims under Title VII and her state law sexual harassment claims due to the statute of limitations. However, summary judgment was denied for her Title VII hostile environment sexual harassment claim and her Title VII and Tennessee Human Rights Act retaliation claims, as sufficient evidence was presented for these claims to proceed to trial.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliatory DischargeHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentSummary Judgment MotionEmployment DiscriminationSupervisor LiabilityWorkplace RetaliationEmployee TerminationStatute of Limitations
References
37
Case No. 04-23-00824-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2025

Victory Capital Management, Inc. v. Julianne Bass

Bass sued Victory Capital for age and sex/gender discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Labor Code. Initially, the trial court compelled arbitration based on an agreement. Bass then sought to lift the stay, arguing the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) exempted her sexual harassment claims from arbitration. The trial court granted Bass's motion to lift the stay, which Victory Capital appealed. The appellate court reversed, concluding that Bass's allegations did not constitute 'sexual harassment' as defined by the EFAA and Texas Labor Code, lacking any conduct of a sexual nature. The case was remanded for the trial court to reinstate the stay and compel arbitration.

ArbitrationSexual HarassmentAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationRetaliationTexas Labor CodeEFAAHostile Work EnvironmentStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
41
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,322 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