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
Dec 23, 1991

Babcock v. Frank

Babcock, a thirty-seven-year-old woman, sued Postmaster General Anthony Frank under Title VII, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. She claimed her immediate supervisor, Anthony Musso, sexually harassed her after their consensual relationship ended, and that the USPS retaliated against her for filing complaints by denying a promotion and imposing sick leave restrictions. Babcock also cited a hostile work environment due to isolated incidents and eventually resigned, asserting constructive discharge. The court found that Babcock was a victim of sexual harassment but concluded the USPS responded appropriately and promptly to all complaints. It determined there was no discriminatory animus in promotion decisions, the alleged hostile environment incidents were insufficient, and the working conditions did not constitute constructive discharge, leading to the dismissal of her complaint.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIIDiscriminationEmployee DisciplineWorkplace ConductUS Postal ServiceSupervisor Misconduct
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1996

Marpe v. Dolmetsch

This case involves cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court in Rensselaer County. The plaintiff, a former employee of Capital Area Community Health Plan (CHP), alleged sexual misconduct and harassment by her therapist and supervisor, Paul Dolmetsch, also employed by CHP. The original complaint included claims against Dolmetsch for sexual harassment, negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, battery, and assault, and against CHP for sexual harassment/discrimination and vicarious liability. Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to add a medical malpractice claim against Dolmetsch and a negligent supervision claim against CHP. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the medical malpractice claim related back to the original complaint and the negligent supervision claim lacked evidentiary merit.

Medical MalpracticeNegligent SupervisionSexual HarassmentAmended ComplaintTherapeutic RelationshipCross AppealAppellate ReviewEvidentiary ShowingDiscretion of CourtCPLR 203 [f]
References
6
Case No. 98-CV-0647
Regular Panel Decision

Szarka v. Reynolds Metals Co.

Plaintiff Christina Szarka brought an action against Reynolds Metals Company and United Steelworkers of America, Local 450-A, alleging sexual harassment, discrimination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law, and negligent supervision by the Union. The Union moved for summary judgment, asserting that Szarka failed to exhaust administrative remedies for sexual harassment claims and could not establish a breach of its duty of fair representation. The Court dismissed the initial 1997 complaint due to premature filing. Subsequently, it granted the Union's motion for summary judgment on all claims in the consolidated 1998 complaint, concluding that sexual harassment claims were barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies, no breach of fair representation duty was shown, and state negligence claims were preempted by the LMRA. Additionally, the Court denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend her complaint to add a retaliation claim, deeming it futile.

DiscriminationSexual HarassmentTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentUnion Duty of Fair RepresentationGrievance ProcedureFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureExhaustion of Administrative RemediesCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
54
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

Hylton v. Norrell Health Care of New York

Paulette B. Hylton, a home health aide, sued her employer, Norrell Health Care of New York, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Hylton claimed that after reporting sexual harassment by a patient's son, she received fewer assignments, was denied her W-2 form, and received a negative work reference. The court found that the sexual harassment was not caused by Norrell, and Norrell took prompt and reasonable remedial action. Furthermore, the court determined that Hylton failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, as her reduced work was due to her taking assignments with competing agencies and a general business downturn at Norrell, and the W-2 and reference issues were not causally linked to her complaint. Therefore, the District Court granted Norrell's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Hylton's complaint.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentHome Health AideTemporary Staffing AgencyEmployer LiabilityHostile Work EnvironmentCausalityAdverse Employment Action
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morf v. Turner Bellows, Inc.

The plaintiff, Vicky Morf, sued her former employer, Turner Bellows, Inc., alleging sexual harassment by coworkers and supervisory inaction, violating Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Morf claimed pervasive verbal abuse, unwanted physical contact, and sexually explicit notes, which persisted despite her complaints to supervisors, ultimately leading her to quit. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of a hostile work environment and that appropriate remedial actions were taken. The court denied the defendant's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the severity and pervasiveness of the alleged harassment and the adequacy of the employer's response, including allegations that supervisors initially laughed at her complaints and that harassment continued post-intervention.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII ClaimsEmployment DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionCoworker MisconductEmployer LiabilityRemedial ActionSupervisory NegligenceConstructive Discharge
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galarza v. American Home Assurance Co.

Lorri Galarza sued her employer, American Home Assurance Company (AHAC), alleging workplace sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York Executive Law. Galarza claimed a co-worker, Marc Kaplan, sexually harassed her, and that she was fired after reporting the harassment to management. AHAC moved for summary judgment, asserting it had a reasonable complaint procedure and that Galarza's termination was due to poor job performance and insubordination, not retaliation. The court found that AHAC provided a reasonable avenue for complaint and made diligent efforts to investigate. Furthermore, the court concluded that Galarza failed to demonstrate that AHAC's stated reasons for her termination were merely a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, AHAC's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing Galarza's claims.

sexual harassmentretaliatory dischargeTitle VIIsummary judgmenthostile work environmentemployee conductperformance deficienciesdiscrimination claimsfederal civil procedure
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lange v. Town of Monroe

Plaintiff Linda Lange sued the Town of Monroe, Town Board Members Donald Weeks and Sandy Leonard, and Highway Department Superintendent Roy Montanye, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and N.Y. Exec. L. § 296. Lange claimed sexual harassment by Montanye between 1994-1995, including gifts, cards, and attempted kisses. After she rebuffed him, Montanye allegedly retaliated by withholding information, preventing assistance to her department, and hiring a secretary without her input. Lange also alleged that Town Board members failed to act on her complaints. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint. It ruled that direct sexual harassment claims were time-barred. Retaliation claims under § 1983 based on equal protection were dismissed as not cognizable, and retaliation for rebuffing advances against Montanye was dismissed due to improper service for individual capacity claims and lack of adverse employment action or policymaking authority for official capacity claims. Quid pro quo harassment claims failed as Montanye was not her supervisor, and hostile work environment claims were rejected due to insufficient severity or pervasiveness of the alleged conduct. State law claims under N.Y. Exec. L. § 296 were also dismissed.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationEqual Protection ClauseSection 1983Summary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentStatute of LimitationsMunicipal LiabilityEmployment Discrimination
References
48
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
Sep 13, 1999

Randall v. Tod-Nik Audiology, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. The defendants sought dismissal of sexual harassment claims under Executive Law § 296 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107, arguing the applicability of the Faragher/Ellerth defense. The court rejected this, finding defendants failed to prove that Steven Mohink, president and 50% owner, was not a corporate proxy, thereby making the Faragher/Ellerth defense unavailing. Furthermore, unresolved issues remained regarding potential retaliation, the promptness of corrective action, and the reasonableness of the plaintiff's non-cooperation. The court also denied dismissal of sexual assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, reiterating that Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity does not apply to intentional torts committed or authorized by an employer.

Sexual HarassmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Faragher/Ellerth DefenseCorporate ProxyEmployer LiabilityIntentional TortWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySexual AssaultBattery
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,543 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