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

McNamee v. Starbucks Coffee Co.

Sharon McNamee ("Plaintiff") sued her former employer, Starbucks Coffee Company ("Defendant"), alleging discrimination based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (gender) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Plaintiff, a manager, experienced a series of adverse events, including denial of transfers, being placed on a 90-day performance improvement plan (PIP), and ultimately termination due to extended disability leave. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and that legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons existed for its actions. The court found that Plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust her ADA claim and could not establish discrimination under the ADEA or Title VII, nor could she maintain her retaliation claim. Consequently, the court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADEAAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas TestAdministrative Exhaustion
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaney v. Starbucks Corp.

Plaintiff John Chaney sued Starbucks for negligence after falling over an electrical charger in a Bronx café. Chaney had noticed the charger upon entering but tripped on it when leaving. Starbucks moved for summary judgment, arguing the charger was an open and obvious condition and not inherently dangerous, thus precluding a duty of care. The court agreed, finding that the white charger contrasted with the orange floor, and Chaney had admitted seeing it and could have avoided it. Furthermore, the court held that chargers in customer seating areas are not inherently dangerous, especially when alternative paths are available. Consequently, the court granted Starbucks's motion for summary judgment, closing the case.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentOpen and Obvious ConditionInherently DangerousDuty of CareSlip and FallCustomer InjuryElectrical ChargerComparative Negligence
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp.

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Smith argues that Labor Law § 196-d, which prohibits employers from demanding or accepting parts of employee gratuities, is inapplicable to disputes over how a common tip pool is shared among employees. The dissent contends that the statute's purpose is to prevent employers from retaining tips meant for employees, not to regulate the internal distribution of pooled tips. Drawing a distinction from federal law and referencing a similar California case, Jou Chau v Starbucks Corp., the judge concludes that extending the statute to tip pooling among employees unnecessarily complicates the law and creates avenues for excessive regulation and litigation, despite agreeing with the majority's outcome in favor of Starbucks.

tip poolingLabor Law § 196-dgratuitieswage disputesemployer responsibilityemployee rightsstatutory interpretationdissenting opinionNew York lawCalifornia Labor Code
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02539 [204 AD3d 903]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2022

Leighton v. Chaber, LLC

Michael Leighton (plaintiff) was allegedly injured on March 20, 2013, when he was struck in the eye by debris from a grinder tool while performing renovation work at a property owned by Chaber, LLC, and leased by Starbucks Corporation. He commenced actions against Chaber, LLC, and Starbucks Corporation, asserting violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) predicated upon 12 NYCRR 23-1.33. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment to dismiss these claims. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court vacated its prior decision and granted the defendants' motions. The plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that 12 NYCRR 23-1.33 does not apply to workers on a construction site, which was the plaintiff's status.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law12 NYCRR 23-1.33Personal InjuryConstruction Site SafetyDebris AccidentReargumentAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationScope of Regulation
References
4
Case No. ADJ6482240
Regular
Dec 21, 2017

CATHERINE SANCHEZ vs. STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision concerning Catherine Sanchez's claim against Starbucks. The WCAB affirmed the original decision but amended the findings of fact to clarify that Sanchez's injury resulted in permanent total disability. This amendment entitles her to lifetime permanent disability payments at a specific weekly rate, with attorney fees to be determined later. The WCAB gave significant weight to the administrative law judge's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to overturn it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJCredibility DeterminationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Permanent Total DisabilityPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityAttorney FeeSedgwick Claims Management Services
References
1
Case No. AD.J9977906, ADJ9977290
Regular
Sep 06, 2018

REBECCA MUBVAKURE vs. STARBUCKS, PSI, SEDGWICK ADM

In *Mubvakure v. Starbucks*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision concerning lien claimant Injury Center Medical Group. The Board determined reconsideration was necessary to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues, ensuring a just and reasoned outcome. All future filings related to the petition for reconsideration must be submitted directly to the Appeals Board Commissioners, not the district office or e-filed. This prevents the trial judge from acting on settlements while the case is pending before the Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantInjury Center Medical GroupStarbucksSedgwickSan Bernardino District OfficeElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Decision After ReconsiderationWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ4602378 (POM 0300098), ADJ3708085 (POM 0300213), ADJ7098978
Regular
Dec 20, 2016

LISA PENILLA vs. STARBUCKS COFFEE CO.; GALLAGHER BASSETT

In *Lisa Penilla v. Starbucks Coffee Co.*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's report, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. The applicant failed to meet this high burden, and rulings made during the MSC can be addressed by the trial judge.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyMSC JudgeTrial Judge
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2009

Claim of Quagliata v. Starbucks Coffee

The claimant, a coffee shop manager, applied for workers' compensation benefits alleging a repetitive occupational injury. The employer and its carrier controverted the claim but submitted an untimely prehearing conference statement. As a result, the WCLJ found that the employer waived all defenses and established the occupational injury. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the employer's contention that the waiver regulation conflicted with Workers' Compensation Law § 25 and upholding the sufficiency of the record.

Occupational InjuryRepetitive Strain InjuryWaiver of DefensesPrehearing Conference StatementUntimely FilingAdministrative LawAppellate ProcedureBoard RegulationsStatutory InterpretationDue Process Rights
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Fetahaj v. Starbucks Corporation

Claimant alleged retaliatory discharge under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 after being terminated for providing false information about a workplace injury. Claimant and a coworker initially submitted incident reports stating claimant fell due to the coworker moving a bin. However, surveillance video revealed the coworker intentionally lifted claimant's legs, causing the fall. Both employees were terminated for falsifying reports. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the retaliatory discharge claim, finding the termination was due to misconduct. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant was discharged for misrepresenting the accident's circumstances, not in retaliation for a workers' compensation claim.

retaliatory dischargeworkers' compensation lawfalsification of recordsemployee misconductincident reportsurveillance videocausal nexusboard determinationappellate reviewsubstantial evidence
References
9
Case No. ADJ8232177
Regular
Jul 03, 2018

CANDELARIO MANJARREZ vs. STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, claiming it omitted a promised $15,000 lump sum with a 40-year annuity. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as premature due to insufficient evidence to support the applicant's claims of mistake or fraud. The Board recommended treating the petition as a request to set aside the award, requiring a hearing to allow the applicant to present evidence. This procedural step is necessary before the Board can make a determination on the merits of the applicant's contentions.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulation with Request for AwardLump-sum paymentAnnuityPetition to Set AsideBaristaTemporary disabilityPermanent disabilityFuture medical careUnilateral mistake
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 16 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