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

Saaidi v. CFAS, LLC

Huda Saaidi sued CFAS, LLC (doing business as EDIFI) and John Braat for employment-related gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and the Administrative Code of the City of Albany. Saaidi alleged sexual harassment by co-workers, a hostile work environment, and retaliation after complaining to management. Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court denied the motion to dismiss and granted summary judgment in part, dismissing Saaidi's Title VII claims against Braat, claims under the Administrative Code of the City of Albany, and Title VII hostile work environment claims. However, the court denied summary judgment on Saaidi’s Title VII retaliation and constructive discharge claims, and all NYSHRL claims for retaliation, constructive discharge, and hostile work environment, finding sufficient evidence for a jury.

Gender DiscriminationUnlawful RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIINYSHRLSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissEmployment LawAdministrative Remedies
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gallentine v. Housing Authority

Berlinsia Gallentine, a black female, sued the Housing Authority of the City of Port Arthur, Texas, and its Executive Director, Seledenio Quesada, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. Gallentine claims Quesada discriminated against her by promoting a Hispanic employee, Paula Watts, giving Watts a lighter caseload, and creating a hostile work environment. The court dismissed Gallentine's Title VII claims against Quesada individually and her independent § 1981 claims, finding Quesada was not an 'employer' under Title VII and that § 1981 claims against state actors must be pursued through § 1983. However, the court allowed Gallentine's Title VII retaliation claim against the Housing Authority (based on a post-EEOC demotion), her § 1983 discrimination and retaliation claims against the Housing Authority, and her § 1983 discrimination claim against Quesada in his individual capacity to proceed. The court applied a four-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims and rejected Quesada's qualified immunity defense for the discrimination claim at this stage, but dismissed the § 1983 retaliation claim against Quesada for lack of personal involvement in the post-EEOC actions.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983Employment LawHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissRacial DiscriminationSupervisory Liability
References
261
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharp v. City of Houston

Plaintiff Patrice Sharp, an officer with the Houston Police Department, filed claims of sexual discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for "pervasive departmental misconduct" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Houston and several individuals. Sharp alleged frequent sexual harassment by her supervisors, Bice and Hankins, including offensive jokes, lewd comments, and inappropriate physical contact, which was corroborated by other officers. She also claimed retaliation after reporting the harassment, experiencing ostracism, sabotage of equipment, and lack of assistance. The court granted summary judgment on Sharp's Title VII retaliation claim and her Fourteenth Amendment § 1983 claim against the City, finding the alleged retaliatory actions did not constitute "ultimate employment decisions" under Title VII and that there was no policy or custom of sexual harassment for the §1983 claim. However, summary judgment was denied for Sharp's Title VII sexual harassment claim and her First Amendment § 1983 retaliation claim, citing existing fact issues regarding the pervasive nature of harassment and whether the alleged campaign of reprisal was severe enough to violate her First Amendment rights.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1983Hostile Work EnvironmentEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentPolice MisconductMunicipal LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
100
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robles v. Cox & Co.

Carmen Robles ("Plaintiff") sued her former employer, Cox and Company, Inc. ("Defendant"), alleging age discrimination under ADEA, Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL; retaliation under Title VII; breach of contract; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Defendant filed a partial motion to dismiss several claims. The court, presided over by Judge Spatt, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the age discrimination claim under NYCHRL, the Title VII retaliation claim (for failure to state a claim), the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and the breach of contract claim. The court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Title VII retaliation claim based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies but ultimately dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff was granted twenty days to file an amended complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADEANYSHRLNYCHRLBreach of ContractIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to Dismiss
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beattie v. Farnsworth Middle School

Plaintiff Patricia Beattie, a part-time paraprofessional, filed a sex discrimination action against the Guilderland Central School District and several individual defendants, alleging sexual harassment by Roger Levinthal and retaliation after she reported the harassment. The court addressed motions to dismiss, finding that the sexual harassment claims were largely time-barred under Title VII due to the continuing violation exception not applying, and employer liability for co-worker harassment was not established for the physical acts. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim, finding sufficient facts to support a prima facie case. Individual defendants' motions to dismiss for individual liability under HRL and Section 1983 were granted, except for Roger Levinthal. The Section 1985 conspiracy claim was also dismissed for lack of specific discriminatory animus.

Sexual harassmentRetaliationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSection 1983Continuing violation doctrineHostile work environmentEmployer liabilityIndividual liabilityPrima facie case
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seale v. Madison Cnty

Plaintiffs Kelly Seale and David Seale filed an employment discrimination action against Madison County and five individual defendants, alleging violations under Title VII, NYHRL, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court dismissed David Seale's Title VII claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted dismissal for most other claims not specifically outlined. However, Kelly Seale's hostile work environment claims (under Title VII, NYHRL against the County, and § 1983 against Episcopo), her retaliation claims (under Title VII against the County, and NYHRL against County, Riley, Episcopo, Aylward), and her First Amendment retaliation claims (against County, Riley, Episcopo, Aylward) survived. David Seale's First Amendment retaliation claim also survived against County, Riley, Bailey, Episcopo, and Aylward. Defendant Cary was terminated as a party.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimsSexual HarassmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. § 1983First AmendmentEqual ProtectionJudgment on Pleadings
References
109
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

Mendelsohn v. University Hospital

Barry Mendelsohn sued University Hospital and Dennis Sheppard for retaliation and discrimination. He alleged Sheppard failed to promote him in retaliation for union complaints, violating 42 U.S.C. § 1988. He also claimed the Hospital discriminated based on sex and retaliated by removing teaching duties after he filed a sex discrimination charge, violating Title VII and NYHRL. Defendants moved to dismiss. The court granted dismissal of the § 1983 retaliation claim against Sheppard and the Title VII sex discrimination claim (with leave to amend regarding qualification), and the NYHRL claims. However, the court denied dismissal of the Title VII retaliation claim against the Hospital, finding that diminished teaching responsibilities constituted an adverse employment action.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISex DiscriminationFailure to PromoteAdverse Employment ActionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)42 U.S.C. Section 1983First AmendmentMotion to Dismiss
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Danish Tourist Board

Lis Hansen, a 60-year-old Danish citizen and U.S. permanent resident, sued the Danish Tourist Board for age and gender discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII, ADEA, NYHRL, and City HRL. She alleged sexual advances by a supervisor, followed by reduced wage increases, increased workload, and denied promotions. She claimed a younger, less qualified woman was promoted over her, and subsequently faced a campaign of harassment leading to her termination. The Tourist Board moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including exemption from ADEA/Title VII, FSIA immunity, failure to exhaust EEOC claims, and statute of limitations. The court denied dismissal based on ADEA/Title VII applicability and FSIA immunity, finding the employment decisions were commercial activity. However, it granted dismissal for the sex discrimination and Title VII retaliation claims due to Hansen's failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the EEOC, as these claims were not 'reasonably related' to her EEOC charge. The court denied dismissal for ADEA and ADEA retaliation claims, and state-law age discrimination claims, applying a 'continuing-violation' exception to the statute of limitations. State-law sex discrimination claims were dismissed as time-barred. Finally, the plaintiff's request for a jury trial was struck as the Tourist Board is considered an agency of a foreign state.

Age DiscriminationGender DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIIADEANew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawMotion to DismissForeign Sovereign Immunities ActCommercial Activity Exception
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porter v. Texaco, Inc.

Plaintiff Mona C. Porter filed an action against her employer, Texaco, Inc., alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. The core issue was whether Porter's sex discrimination claims were jurisdictionally sound, given that her EEOC charge only cited age discrimination and retaliation for participating in a class action, without alleging sex discrimination. The court determined that Porter's sex discrimination claims were not included in or reasonably related to her EEOC charge under any of the three established criteria (retaliation for filing EEOC charge, further incidents of discrimination in the same manner, or within the scope of a reasonable EEOC investigation). Furthermore, the retaliation claims in her Title VII complaint were also deemed not reasonably related to her EEOC charge due to differing conduct and forms of alleged retaliation. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction over the Title VII sex discrimination claim, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of all federal claims. The supplemental state law claims were subsequently dismissed without prejudice.

Sex DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIEEOC ExhaustionSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionHuman Rights LawEmployment LawDiscrimination Claim
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 2,182 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