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. 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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Braband

Claimant resigned from her employment due to alleged sexual harassment by her supervisor. Initially, she was denied unemployment insurance benefits for voluntarily leaving employment without good cause. The Administrative Law Judge upheld this determination, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, ruling her entitled to benefits. The employer appealed, arguing the Board erred in substituting its judgment without further hearings and that there was insufficient evidence of sexual harassment. The court found no error in the Board's procedure, citing Labor Law § 621 (3), and determined that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision to credit the claimant's testimony regarding sexual harassment. The decision of the Board was affirmed.

Unemployment BenefitsSexual HarassmentVoluntary ResignationGood CauseAdministrative Law JudgeUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationLabor LawJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2002

Frank v. Plaza Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Frank filed suit against Plaza Construction Corporation, Fisher Brothers, and Steven Fisher alleging sexual harassment, gender-based disparate treatment, disability discrimination under the ADA for dyslexia, and retaliatory discharge. The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Title VII sexual harassment claims (hostile work environment and quid pro quo) and the disparate treatment claim. However, the ADA claim was dismissed as Frank failed to provide sufficient evidence of a substantially limiting impairment. The retaliatory discharge claim was partially dismissed, surviving only in relation to alleged complaints about sexual harassment by Peter Hulbert.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentRetaliatory DischargeADA ClaimDyslexiaSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brookdale Hospital Medical Center v. Local 1199, National Health & Human Service Employees Union

Brookdale Hospital Medical Center initiated an action against Local 1199, National Health & Human Service Employees Union, seeking to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated five employees discharged for alleged sexual harassment. The District Court identified significant ambiguity in the arbitrator's decision regarding factual findings and their alignment with the strong public policy against workplace sexual harassment. Consequently, the court found it difficult to affirm or vacate the award without further detail. The case has been remanded to Arbitrator Lois A. Rappaport to clarify specific definitions of sexual harassment, detail the factual basis for her conclusions, and address the Grievants' prior disciplinary history. The court's ruling on the cross-motions to vacate or confirm the award is stayed pending this essential clarification.

Arbitration AwardVacaturRemandSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentWorkplace MisconductEmployee ReinstatementCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator Clarification
References
28
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
Showing 1-10 of 885 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