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

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

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
Feb 27, 2012

Anderson v. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

Donovan Anderson sued his former employer, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, and several supervisors, alleging employment discrimination based on sex, age, race, and sexual orientation, along with claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws. U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald addressed the defendants' motions to dismiss and to strike certain allegations. The court dismissed most of Anderson's claims, including those for gender, age, race, sexual orientation discrimination, retaliation, and failure to promote, citing insufficient factual plausibility or being time-barred. However, specific sexual harassment claims against DPW, Candelario, Jones, and Grant, relating to incidents from 2004 onwards, were partially allowed to proceed. The court also granted the motion to strike immaterial and scandalous allegations and denied leave to further amend the complaint due to bad faith.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationFailure to PromoteRace DiscriminationFair Labor Standards ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
65
Case No. 2017-913 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2019

Oriental Health Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal initiated by Oriental Health Acupuncture, P.C., acting as the assignee of Carrington, Earnel, against State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. The appeal originated from an order by the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which had granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint seeking first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court's decision was predicated on the finding that the amounts claimed by the plaintiff exceeded the limits established by the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's order. This decision was made in conjunction with a related case, BQE Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., decided concurrently.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentAppellate reviewWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAutomobile insuranceFirst-party benefitsMedical provider claimAssigned benefitsCivil Court appealAppellate Term decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 1989

Oriental Commercial & Shipping Co. v. Rosseel, N.V.

In this action, defendant Rosseel, N.V. ("Rosseel") moved to compel the depositions of plaintiffs Oriental Commercial & Shipping Co., Ltd. ("Oriental U.K."), Oriental Commercial Shipping Co., Ltd. ("Oriental S.A."), and Abdul Hamid Bokhari ("Bokhari"). Rosseel sought to discover the location of the plaintiffs' assets outside Saudi Arabia, asserting this information was necessary to ensure the enforceability of any potential arbitration award, given concerns about asset transfers and difficulties enforcing awards in Saudi Arabia. The court denied Rosseel's motion, ruling that discovery "in aid of arbitration" is only permitted under "extraordinary circumstances" related to the subject matter of the arbitration itself. The court found that Rosseel's request was for convenience rather than necessity, as the information sought was not intended for presentation to the arbitrators but rather to assess the desirability of continuing arbitration. Consequently, finding no extraordinary circumstances and no remaining claims to be resolved, the court dismissed the action.

ArbitrationDiscoveryFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureAsset DiscoveryEnforcement of AwardsExtraordinary CircumstancesInternational ArbitrationFraud FindingMotion PracticeDismissal
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2011

Swift v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Plaintiff, a homosexual male and former employee of Countrywide Home Loans, filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination based on Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law, claiming a hostile work environment due to "gender stereotyping" and retaliatory termination. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing Title VII does not cover sexual orientation discrimination and that the harassment wasn't severe enough. The court granted summary judgment for the hostile environment claim, concluding that the plaintiff was attempting to "bootstrap" a sexual orientation discrimination claim into a gender stereotyping claim, which is not cognizable under Title VII. However, the court denied summary judgment for the retaliation claim, finding that the plaintiff's good faith belief in protected activity and questions of fact regarding causation and pretext were sufficient to withstand summary judgment.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentGender StereotypingSexual OrientationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

SDJ, Inc. v. City of Houston

Twenty-three owners of topless bars challenged the constitutionality of City of Houston Ordinance 86-323, which regulates sexually oriented businesses. The plaintiffs raised various federal and state constitutional grounds, including First Amendment violations, vagueness, overbreadth, unlawful taking, and equal protection. The court found that the ordinance generally served a substantial governmental interest in regulating the secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses. However, specific sections (28-123(a)(l)(i), 28-123(a)(6), and 28-125(b)(8)) were deemed unconstitutional for infringing on First Amendment freedoms and privacy rights, and their enforcement was permanently enjoined. The court upheld the remaining provisions of the ordinance, finding them severable and a valid exercise of the city's police powers, thereby denying a permanent injunction against those portions.

ConstitutionalityOrdinanceSexually Oriented BusinessesTopless BarsFirst AmendmentFreedom of ExpressionLand-Use RegulationZoningDue ProcessEqual Protection
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bliss v. MXK Restaurant Corp.

Jamilya Bliss initiated a discrimination suit against MXK Restaurant and its owner, Panagiotis Kotsonis, alleging gender discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL. Bliss claimed a hostile work environment due to being subjected to sex parties, enduring derogatory comments about LGBT individuals and African Americans, and facing retaliation after encouraging a colleague to pursue a racism claim. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding Bliss failed to adequately establish a causal link for her gender discrimination claims and did not engage in protected activity concerning retaliation. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the sexual orientation claims, advising Bliss to refile them in state court. Claims against Kotsonis for aiding and abetting were also dismissed due to the absence of an underlying violation by another party.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentGender DiscriminationSexual Orientation DiscriminationRetaliationMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Title VIINYSHRLNYCHRL
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2001

Levin v. Yeshiva University

Plaintiffs Sara Levin and Maggie Jones, lesbian students at Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine (AECOM), challenged the university's housing policy that restricted cohabitation in university-owned housing to students, their spouses, and dependent children. They alleged discrimination based on marital status and a disparate impact on the basis of sexual orientation, violating the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, which the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division's order, reinstating the disparate impact claim for Levin and Jones under the New York City Human Rights Law, asserting that the lower court erred in its comparison group analysis by excluding married students. The Court found no facial discrimination on marital status but allowed the sexual orientation disparate impact claim to proceed.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationDisparate ImpactHousing PolicyMarital StatusNew York City Human Rights LawUniversity HousingLesbian RightsDiscrimination ClaimAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Philpott v. New York

Plaintiff Jeffery Philpott, a former Vice President at SUNY’s College of Optometry, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit alleging sexual orientation discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Initially, the State of New York and the University of the State of New York were named as defendants but were later dismissed, as was a claim under the ADA, leaving only State University of New York (SUNY) as a defendant. The court evaluated whether sexual orientation discrimination is cognizable under Title VII, finding that it is due to the evolving legal landscape and recent circuit court decisions. It concluded that plaintiff plausibly alleged his claims and that they were not time-barred. However, the court dismissed the Title IX claim, determining that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination in federally funded educational institutions. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIITitle IXMotion to DismissGender StereotypingStatute of LimitationsEmployment DiscriminationFederal Court
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,000 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