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
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 1997

Chopra v. Display Producers, Inc.

Madhu Chopra, an assembly line worker for Display Producers, Inc., sued her employer and supervisor Wims Fyilsiame for sexual harassment and discrimination under Title VII. Chopra alleged that Fyilsiame sexually harassed her after his promotion in 1992, making her working conditions intolerable and leading to her termination in 1996. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Chopra's claims were subject to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act. The court denied the defendants' motion, holding that an arbitration clause in a CBA does not preclude an individual from litigating statutory claims under Title VII, distinguishing Gilmer from Alexander v. Gardner-Denver. The court also concluded that Title VII claims are not preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIICollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActIndividual Statutory RightsUnion Representation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Cunningham

Plaintiff Gigi Shanes Hernandez, an employment counselor at the Westchester County Office of Employment and Training, alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker and subsequent retaliation from her supervisors after reporting the incidents. Following a period of inaction, hostile work environment, and eventual termination, Shanes filed a complaint with the EEOC and initiated a prior action (Shanes I) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where she reportedly prevailed. The current case is a Title VII action brought by Shanes, based on the same factual predicate of harassment and retaliation. Defendants moved to dismiss the Title VII claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), asserting the doctrine of res judicata. The court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that the Title VII claim was barred because the factual issues were identical to the previously litigated § 1983 action, and Shanes could have included or stayed her Title VII claims in the prior litigation.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VII42 U.S.C. 2000eRes JudicataMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Federal Civil ProcedureEEOC ComplaintEmployment Law
References
10
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. 00 Civ. 1898, M21-88, MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation

This opinion and order denies Orange County Water District's (OCWD) motion to remand its action to state court. OCWD, a plaintiff in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving water contamination by MTBE, argued that its case was improperly removed from state court under bankruptcy statutes. The District Court, presided over by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, found that OCWD's motion to remand was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because it was filed more than 30 days after the notice of removal. The court emphasized that improper removal is a procedural defect, waivable if not challenged within 30 days, while a lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. As the court retained core bankruptcy jurisdiction, the motion was denied, highlighting Congress's intent to prevent late-stage forum shopping and ensure efficient litigation in MDLs.

Multidistrict LitigationMTBE ContaminationWater PollutionRemoval JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionBankruptcy LawRemand MotionProcedural DefectWaiver28 U.S.C. 1447(c)
References
25
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

Susko v. Romano's MacAroni Grill

Plaintiff Karen M. Susko sued her former employer, Romano's Macaroni Grill, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII. Susko reported multiple incidents of alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker, Daniel Fabrizio, including touching, attempted kissing, patting, and threats of physical violence, which occurred between October 1996 and March 1997. Although Romano's responded by warning and eventually terminating Fabrizio, Susko claims the company failed to take adequate action to prevent further harassment. Romano's moved for partial summary judgment on the sexual harassment claim, arguing that the incidents did not constitute a hostile work environment and that their response was reasonable. The court denied the motion, finding sufficient factual support for a hostile work environment claim and a remaining factual issue regarding the reasonableness of Romano's employer response.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityCo-worker HarassmentRetaliation ClaimFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56DiscriminationWorkplace Harassment Policy
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tainsky v. Clarins USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Harriet Tainsky filed a lawsuit against her employer Clarins USA, Inc. and her supervisor Cathy Lawrence, alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII, and negligent supervision against Clarins. Tainsky claimed Lawrence subjected her to unwanted physical contact, verbal sexual comments, and retaliated against her after she complained. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no sexual harassment occurred and Tainsky was fired for poor performance. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the sexual harassment and retaliation claims against Clarins, thus denying summary judgment in part. However, the Title VII claims against Lawrence individually were dismissed, as Title VII applies only to employers. The negligent supervision claim against Clarins also remains for trial, specifically regarding events after Clarins had notice of Lawrence's alleged misbehavior.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINegligent SupervisionEmployment DiscriminationSame-Sex HarassmentFederal CourtDistrict Court
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,622 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