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

Deichman v. Board of Education

Petitioners, tenured school social workers, were terminated by respondent school district in July 1977, subject to preferred eligibility under Education Law § 2585(4). In September 1977, respondent Rivera, a non-tenured, less senior individual, was hired as a temporary school social worker because she spoke Spanish and qualified under a reclassification plan. Respondents argued the reclassification created a special tenure area, negating petitioners' preferred eligibility. The court ruled that local school boards cannot create special tenure areas without authorization from the Commissioner of Education or the Legislature, and the Buffalo School District was not authorized. The power to license teachers does not equate to the authority to establish special tenure areas. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to preferred eligibility and appointment based on seniority, with removal only permissible under Education Law § 3020-a if unqualified.

Tenure AreaSchool Social WorkersPreferred EligibilitySeniority RightsTeacher LicensingReclassification PlanBuffalo School DistrictAppellate ReviewEmployment TerminationStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2011

Dietz v. Board of Education of Rochester City School District

Petitioner commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement of his employment with the Rochester City School District after his position as a "school instructor/transition counselor" was abolished. He contended he was entitled to seniority rights within the "special subject tenure area" of school social worker under 8 NYCRR 30-1.8 (b) (9) and Education Law § 2585 (3), asserting he was not the least senior person in that tenure area. The Supreme Court denied the petition, and the appellate court affirmed. The collective bargaining agreement between the District and the union specified that layoffs for "school instructors" would occur within distinct categories, not tenure areas, and that school instructors could not displace teachers. By accepting employment as a school instructor and participating in the CBA, the petitioner was deemed to have waived any seniority rights in the school social worker tenure area.

Employment LawSeniority RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementSchool InstructorSchool Social WorkerTenure AreaCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial ReviewWaiver of RightsWorkforce Reduction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bakewell v. Stephen F. Austin State University

This case concerns allegations of sex discrimination in employment brought against Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA) by two female faculty members, Helene Bakewell and Hebe Mace, and a certified plaintiff class of female tenure and tenure-track faculty. Helene Bakewell's claims included unequal pay, discriminatory denial of tenure, denial of extended sick leave with pay related to pregnancy, retaliatory discharge, and First Amendment violations. Hebe Mace alleged unequal pay. The plaintiff class asserted a pattern or practice of sex discrimination in compensation. The court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that SFA engaged in sex discrimination or retaliation.

Sex DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIITitle IXUnequal PayDenial of TenureRetaliationFirst AmendmentAcademic FreedomPublic Employees
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaplan v. Ruggieri

Plaintiff David Kaplan sued St. John's University and several individuals alleging six causes of action, including breach of a collective bargaining agreement, breach of duty of fair representation, wrongful denial of tenure, and defamation. The core of Kaplan's claims revolved around being denied tenure, changes to his teaching schedule, and the Union's handling of his grievances. The court reviewed defendants' motion for summary judgment, noting that the facts were undisputed. The court dismissed all of Kaplan's claims, finding that his first claim lacked a genuine controversy, the second lacked allegations of bad faith against the Union, and the third and fourth failed due to non-exhaustion of grievance procedures. The fifth claim was dismissed because tenure decisions were excluded from grievance procedures, and the defamation claim was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Tenure DenialSummary JudgmentLabor-Management Relations ActBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationGrievance ProcedureCollective Bargaining AgreementAcademic EmploymentDefamationExhaustion of RemediesFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dobbs-Weinstein v. Vanderbilt University

Plaintiff Idit Dobbs-Weinstein alleged gender and national origin discrimination against Vanderbilt University after being denied tenure, also bringing state law claims for breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith. While she was eventually granted tenure retroactively by the University after an appeal, she sought damages for emotional harm, professional reputation damage, and lost interest on backpay, and also claimed sex discrimination in faculty salaries. The Court found that Dobbs-Weinstein failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact regarding discrimination in her tenure denial or in class-wide salary disparities, citing academic reasons for the initial denial and a lack of statistical significance in her wage discrimination claims. Consequently, the Court granted Vanderbilt University's motion for summary judgment, dismissing her federal discrimination claims. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Tenure denialEmployment discriminationGender discriminationNational origin discriminationTitle VIITennessee Human Rights ActSummary judgmentAcademic freedomFaculty evaluationStatistical analysis
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Long Beach v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n

This dissenting opinion by Chief Judge Kaye addresses the arbitrability of certain provisions within a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the City of Long Beach and the CSEA, specifically concerning provisional employees' 'tenure' rights. The case centers on Maria Almonte, a long-term provisional bus dispatcher, who was terminated and sought transfer to a vacant bus driver position, a request subsequently denied by the City. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division had previously granted a stay of arbitration on her grievance. Chief Judge Kaye dissents from the majority's decision to affirm this stay, arguing that while sections granting tenure to provisional employees are indeed not arbitrable, Almonte's specific request for placement into an open, noncompetitive position for which she is qualified is arbitrable. The dissent contends that allowing arbitration for such placement does not conflict with the Civil Service Law's merit-based system and aligns with public policy favoring arbitration in public sector labor disputes, clarifying that this does not equate to granting tenure or permanent appointment rights.

Provisional EmployeesCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilityCivil Service LawPublic EmploymentJob TransferSeniority RightsDissenting OpinionLabor DisputeEmployment Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pauk v. Board of Trustees

Plaintiff, a former Queens College employee, was denied tenure in 1975 after serving for six years. He challenged this decision through an Article 78 proceeding, which was adjudicated against him, and a Federal civil rights suit, which was dismissed as time-barred. In 1981, plaintiff initiated the instant action, asserting three causes of action: breach of employment contract, violation of New York Constitution Article V and Education Law § 6212, and the unconstitutionality of the defendant's policies regarding tenure decisions. The court dismissed the third cause of action, finding no requirement to provide reasons for denying tenure to a nontenured teacher. The court also dismissed the second cause of action, citing res judicata as it could have been raised in the prior Article 78 proceeding. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the first cause of action, applying the Restatement of Judgments, Second, to allow the breach of contract claim to proceed, as it could not have been fully litigated in the previous Article 78 proceeding. The court further determined that the six-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213 (subd 1)) applied to the first cause of action, deeming its essence constitutional rather than purely contractual or statutory.

Tenure denialRes judicataCollateral estoppelStatute of LimitationsArticle 78 proceedingBreach of contractConstitutional rightsEducation LawNew York ConstitutionEmployment dispute
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Brunswick Central School District & Brittonkill Teachers Ass'n

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the petitioner's application to stay arbitration. The petitioner and respondent, parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), were in dispute after the petitioner denied tenure to a probationary teacher and the respondent filed a grievance challenging evaluation procedures. The Supreme Court initially granted the stay, concluding that the grievance challenged the non-arbitrable tenure decision rather than the arbitrable evaluation procedures. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the question of whether the evaluation procedures were violated pertained to the merits of the grievance and not its arbitrability, emphasizing the limited role of courts in staying arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureTenure DisputeEvaluation ProceduresArbitrabilityStay of ArbitrationAppellate ReviewLabor RelationsEducation Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meling v. St. Francis College

Barbara Meling sued St. Francis College and its president, Donald Sullivan, alleging wrongful termination due to physical disabilities, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. A jury found in Meling's favor, awarding $225,000 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages. The defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and to set aside punitive damages were denied, upholding the jury's verdicts. The court also granted Meling $141,251 in back pay with interest and ordered her reinstatement as an Assistant Professor of Physical Education. However, her request for reinstatement with tenure was denied, as the court opted not to intervene in the university's tenure decision-making process.

Disability discriminationWrongful terminationAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActCompensatory damagesPunitive damagesBack payReinstatementTenureAcademic freedom
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stout v. Whiteaker

Plaintiff William H. Stout, a tenured teacher in Putnam County, Tennessee, filed an action alleging his dismissal without a prior hearing violated his due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants included the Chairman, members of the Board of Education, the Superintendent, and the High School principal. Stout's subsequent requests for a hearing were ignored. The court determined that Stout's tenured status constituted a 'property' interest under state law, necessitating Fourteenth Amendment due process for termination. Finding a lack of meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard, the court ruled in favor of Stout, ordering his reinstatement to the Putnam County School System with back pay, subject to mitigation for other earnings.

Due ProcessTenureTeacher DismissalProperty InterestPublic EmploymentProcedural Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentCivil Rights Act of 1871ReinstatementBack Pay
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 84 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