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

Verizon New York Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission

Verizon New York Inc. commenced a special proceeding against the New York State Public Service Commission and other respondents. Verizon sought to overturn a determination allowing public disclosure of certain documents, which Verizon claimed were trade secrets or confidential commercial information, under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The documents in question related to Verizon's network costs and its methods and procedures for its wireless service, Verizon Voice Link (WL). The court reviewed the Secretary's and RAO's determinations, which found some information to be trade secrets but still required a showing of 'substantial injury' for exemption. The court ruled that once information is deemed a trade secret under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d), no further showing of substantial competitive injury is required for exemption. Consequently, the court granted in part the petition, exempting specific cost information and several M&P documents from disclosure, while denying exemption for three M&P documents.

FOIL ExemptionTrade Secret ProtectionConfidential Commercial InformationPublic Officers Law § 87 (2) (d)Substantial Competitive InjuryStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Determination ReviewCPLR Article 78Wireless ServicesCost Information Disclosure
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. Verizon New York, Inc.

Plaintiff Bianca Fleming sued her former employer, Verizon New York, Inc., for employment discrimination under Title VII, ADA, HRL, and NYCHRL. Fleming alleged racial and gender discrimination, a sexually hostile work environment, and failure to accommodate her medical condition from 1998 to 2001. She also claimed retaliation for her complaints. Verizon moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and statute of limitations. The court granted Verizon's motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain Title VII claims for retaliation and hostile work environment, and dismissing other claims as time-barred, while allowing specific continuing violation claims to proceed.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexually Hostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawAdministrative Exhaustion
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meeks v. Verizon New York, Inc.

The claimant, an employee of Verizon New York, Inc., sustained a work-related injury and received both workers' compensation benefits and payments from a Sickness and Accident Disability Benefit Plan. Upon being granted a schedule loss of use award, Verizon sought full reimbursement for the advanced payments. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision that Verizon was entitled to full reimbursement, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law § 25 was not preempted by ERISA and that the Plan allowed for reimbursement from collateral sources. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Plan's intent to prevent double recoveries and that any further assertions regarding the Plan administrator's discretion or fiduciary duties must be addressed in a federal ERISA action.

Workers' Compensation LawReimbursementERISA PreemptionSchedule Loss of UseSickness and Accident Disability Benefit PlanCollateral SourceDouble RecoveryVerizon New York Inc.Appellate ReviewBenefit Plan Interpretation
References
9
Case No. 02-CV-6628
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Verizon Wireless

This Decision and Order consolidates three discrimination actions brought by former Verizon Wireless employees Karen Davis, LaTayna McDonald, and Karin Sams against Verizon Wireless and Adecco (for McDonald). Plaintiffs alleged claims of sexual harassment, gender/race discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law, primarily concerning supervisors Greg Callaghan and Jeremy Schaut. The Court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part, dismissing all claims by Sams and all claims against Adecco. For Davis and McDonald against Verizon, claims related to race-based hostile work environment will proceed to a jury trial, along with McDonald's retaliatory failure to hire claim, while other retaliation claims were dismissed. The Court found issues of fact regarding the race-based hostile work environment claims for Davis and McDonald against Verizon, but dismissed all claims by Sams for lack of sufficient evidence.

DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawQuid Pro QuoEmployment Law
References
59
Case No. 525867
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2018

Matter of Murtha v. Verizon N.Y. Inc.

Claimant Bryon J. Murtha sustained injuries while working for Verizon New York Inc. and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A WCLJ established the claim and later denied authorization for surgery, assessing a penalty against claimant's counsel, Grey and Grey, LLP, for dilatory tactics. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld the denial of surgery but found the WCLJ improperly assessed the penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (3) (c), instead assessing it under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) for the firm's alleged failure to ensure physicians' availability for depositions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's assessment of a penalty against Grey and Grey, LLP, finding that Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) does not authorize penalties against counsel, and even if it did, substantial evidence did not support the claim that the firm was responsible for the physicians' non-compliance with subpoenas, as enforcement was the carrier's responsibility.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsMonetary Penalty AssessmentDilatory TacticsAttorney MisconductStatutory AuthorizationAppellate ReviewMedical DepositionsSubpoena EnforcementCarrier ResponsibilityClaimant Counsel
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Verizon New York, Inc.

The petitioner, Vince McLeod, initially filed a petition in New York State Supreme Court against Verizon New York, Inc., alleging wrongful termination and that his union, Communications Workers of America (CWA), breached its duty of fair representation. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. Verizon moved to dismiss the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that McLeod's claims were preempted by LMRA § 301 and were time-barred, and that his constitutional claims lacked merit. The Court granted Verizon's motion, dismissing the case in its entirety, finding the hybrid LMRA § 301 claim to be time-barred and the constitutional claims abandoned or without merit. The Court, however, denied Verizon's request for Rule 11 sanctions due to procedural non-compliance.

Wrongful TerminationDuty of Fair RepresentationHybrid Section 301 ClaimLabor Management Relations ActMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessRule 11 Sanctions
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lightwave Communications, LLC v. Verizon Services Corp.

Lightwave Communications, LLC petitioned the court to vacate parts of an arbitration award against Verizon Services Corp. for billing inaccuracies, citing manifest disregard of federal law by the arbitrator. Verizon moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the parties were non-diverse, federal law did not create Lightwave's cause of action, and the motion did not raise a substantial federal question. The court, presided over by Judge Rakoff, examined Lightwave's claims that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded federal telecommunications laws (47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 202, 251, 252). The court found that Lightwave's examples did not demonstrate a "key part" or "substantial" federal question to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, Verizon's motion to dismiss was granted, and a previously issued temporary injunction against Verizon was dissolved.

Federal Arbitration ActSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionArbitration Award VacaturTelecommunications BillingInterconnection AgreementManifest Disregard of LawMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(1)Second Circuit Precedent
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bryant v. Verizon Communications Inc.

Plaintiff Barbara Bryant sued her former employer, Verizon Communications, and her national and local labor unions, the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and CWA Local 1103, alleging race and gender discrimination. Bryant claimed discriminatory discharge and working conditions by Verizon, and violations of the duty of fair representation (DFR) and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) by the unions. The court found Bryant's DFR claims against the unions were time-barred. Summary judgment was granted to the unions on the HRL claims, as no evidence of DFR breach or discriminatory motivation was presented. For Verizon, summary judgment was also granted, as Bryant failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation due to unsatisfactory job performance and lack of protected activity, and her hostile work environment and discriminatory assignment claims lacked evidence of objective severity or discriminatory cause.

Race DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSummary JudgmentDuty of Fair Representation (DFR)Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA)New York State Human Rights Law (HRL)Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Time-Barred ClaimsPreemptionWork Time Violations
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levy v. Verizon Information Services Inc.

Plaintiffs, sales representatives for Verizon, brought a consolidated class action alleging unlawful wage deductions under New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania state laws, and failure to make overtime payments under federal and state law. Verizon moved to dismiss the wage deduction claims, asserting preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act (§ 301 LMRA) or failure to state a claim under state law. The court granted Verizon's motion in its entirety. It ruled that most post-July 2003 claims were preempted by § 301 LMRA, New York interim claims were preempted under the Machinists doctrine, and pre-July 2003 New York and Pennsylvania claims failed as a matter of state law because advanced incentive compensation did not constitute 'earned wages' before reconciliation, and thus was not subject to unlawful deduction statutes.

Class ActionWage DeductionLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementPreemptionLMRAMachinists DoctrineIncentive CompensationEmployment LawMotion to Dismiss
References
35
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 85 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