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

Amaya v. Ballyshear LLC

Plaintiff Nelly Amaya filed an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Ballyshear LLC, Geller & Company LLC, and several individuals, alleging violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York Executive Law § 296. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion in part, dismissing Title VII claims for wrongful termination, retaliatory discharge, and constructive discharge, along with similar claims under § 1981 and NYSHRL. However, the Court denied the motion in part, allowing hostile work environment and workplace retaliation claims under NYSHRL, and hostile work environment and retaliatory workplace claims under § 1981 to proceed against all defendants, as well as the NYSHRL aiding and abetting claim.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981NYSHRLMotion to Dismiss
References
127
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caballero v. First Albany Corp.

Plaintiff, a former employee, appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendant employer, dismissing her six causes of action. Her claims included gender discrimination, wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery (due to secondhand smoke), unsafe workplace (Labor Law § 200), and civil rights discrimination (Civil Rights Law § 40-c), all stemming from alleged retaliation for her complaints about smoking in the office. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the mistreatment was animus-based, not sexual discrimination. The court also held that her employment was at-will, her emotional distress claims lacked outrageous conduct, and her assault and battery and unsafe workplace claims were barred by Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions.

Employment-at-willSummary JudgmentGender DiscriminationWrongful DischargeIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAssault and BatteryUnsafe WorkplaceWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySmoking PolicyRetaliation
References
19
Case No. 01A01-9602-CH-00073
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 1998

Devore v. Deloitte & Touche

This appeal concerns an employment discrimination action filed by Maurice DeVore against Deloitte & Touche. DeVore, a computer programmer, alleged he was terminated due to race discrimination and in retaliation for filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The trial court granted summary judgment to Deloitte & Touche, determining DeVore failed to present sufficient evidence of discrimination or pretext. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that DeVore's statistical evidence and personal beliefs were insufficient to prove pretext for the employer's stated reason of inadequate job performance.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextual ReasonStatistical EvidenceJob PerformanceTraining DisparityEEOC Charge
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stanford v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

The plaintiff, a provisional human rights specialist, sued her employer, the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and several individual defendants for employment discrimination. She alleged discrimination based on national origin and retaliation after her termination, which followed a history of insubordination and conflict with her supervisor. The court found no evidence to support either the national origin discrimination claim, noting similar racial backgrounds among parties, or the retaliation claim, as the Commission had encouraged employees to challenge the civil service examination in question. The decision concluded that the plaintiff's termination stemmed from an irreconcilable personal antagonism with her supervisor rather than any discriminatory reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, affirming that federal courts should not intervene in personnel decisions based on non-discriminatory grounds.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimInsubordinationProvisional Employee TerminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActEEOC ComplaintSupervisor-Employee ConflictFederal District Court CaseWorkplace Conduct
References
5
Case No. 2013-74668
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2015

in Re Solid Software Solutions, Inc., D/B/A Edible Software

Andrea Farmer, an employee of Solid Software Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Edible Software, filed a lawsuit against her employer and Henri Morris (President and CEO) alleging sexual assault and invasion of privacy. Ms. Farmer claims Morris drugged her during business trips, rendering her unconscious, and then sexually assaulted her and took nude photographs without her consent. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, arguing that the claims are time-barred under a two-year limitations period and are preempted by the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), which addresses workplace discrimination. Ms. Farmer argues that her claims are not workplace discrimination but intentional sexual assaults, governed by a five-year statute of limitations for sexual abuse or, alternatively, that the limitations period was tolled due to fraudulent concealment. She also asserts that the TCHRA is inapplicable and that, if Texas law is not applied, the laws of the states where the attacks occurred support her claims for assault/battery.

Sexual AssaultInvasion of PrivacyStatute of LimitationsFraudulent ConcealmentTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Labor CodeWorkplace DiscriminationEmployee LitigationTort LawSexual Abuse
References
234
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Board of Higher Education & Professional Staff Congress/CUNY

This case addresses a petition to stay arbitration initiated by a petitioner against a respondent, representing Sandra Davis and Luis Rodriquez-Abad. The grievants, non-reappointed instructional staff at CUNY (Hunter College), sought arbitration alleging discrimination. The petitioner refused to process these grievances, citing a collective bargaining agreement clause (Section 20.7) that precludes arbitration for discrimination claims if a party has filed a claim in court or with a governmental agency. Sandra Davis had filed a Title VII lawsuit, and Luis Rodriquez-Abad had filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. The court, referencing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., ruled that while statutory rights cannot be prospectively waived, the contractual right to arbitration can be waived if a superior forum is chosen. Consequently, the court granted the petition to stay arbitration of the discrimination claim, allowing other claims to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementDiscriminationNonreappointmentTenureGrievance ProcedureTitle VIICivil Rights ActExecutive Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parry v. Tompkins County

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nash v. Northland Communications Corp.

The appellant, an employee of Northland, sustained two back injuries and settled two workers' compensation claims. After the second injury, Northland terminated his employment. The appellant filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination under Article 8307c of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, seeking damages for various personal injuries. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Northland, severing the discrimination claim. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that an employee cannot seek a second recovery for the same personal injury under a discrimination claim if the damages sought are solely and inseparably tied to the injury for which workers' compensation benefits have already been received.

Workers' CompensationDiscriminationSummary JudgmentElection of RemediesDouble RecoveryTexas LawBack InjuryEmployment TerminationPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Keselman v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a discrimination claim. In 1986, the claimant sustained a shoulder injury and was placed on disability retirement in 1990 by the self-insured employer. In 2001, the claimant filed a discrimination claim, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found the discrimination claim untimely, as it was filed almost 11 years after the alleged discriminatory practice in 1990, exceeding the two-year statutory period under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the claimant's argument that the two-year period should start from a later Board decision.

workers' compensationdiscrimination claimtimelinessstatute of limitationsretaliationdisability retirementAppellate DivisionBoard decisionNew York lawjudicial review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shafa v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought an employment discrimination action against Montgomery Ward Co., Inc. under Title VII, alleging termination based on national origin. The case was tried before an advisory jury, which found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. The Court concurred, concluding that the plaintiff's termination was due to insubordination and unapproved absence, not discriminatory intent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice, denying all requests for relief, including the defendant's conditional motion for attorney's fees.

employment discriminationTitle VIIterminationpro se litigationinsubordinationnational origin discriminationadvisory juryprima facie caseSecond CircuitMcDonnell Douglas framework
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 3,195 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