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

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duran v. Jamaica Hospital

Plaintiff Maria Duran commenced an action against Jamaica Hospital and Joseph DeToma, alleging negligence, slander, and wrongful termination. Duran claimed harassment, false accusations of theft by DeToma, and subsequent termination without due process. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims, and the court converted the wrongful termination claim into a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the negligence claim, ruling it was barred by New York Workers’ Compensation Law. The slander claim was also dismissed as time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The wrongful termination claim was granted on summary judgment, with the court finding it preempted by federal labor law or, alternatively, time-barred by a six-month statute of limitations. All of Plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Title VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationNegligenceSlanderWrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsPreemptionLabor Management Relations Act
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 1994

Lawson v. Getty Terminals Corp.

Plaintiff Fred A. Lawson, an African-American male, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Getty Terminals Corp. and Gordon Rodgers, alleging racial discrimination in promotion opportunities and wrongful termination, as well as retaliation for internal complaints. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found that Lawson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, disparate impact, or retaliation. Specifically, the court noted Lawson's poor job performance and that he was replaced by another African-American male. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in its entirety, including all associated state law claims.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 198142 U.S.C. § 1983RetaliationDisparate ImpactPrima Facie CaseJob Performance
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maney v. Corning, Inc.

Cathy Louise Maney sued her employer, Corning's Photonics Plant, and co-worker Phillip Huber, alleging employment discrimination under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Maney claimed hostile work environment sexual discrimination and retaliation/wrongful termination due to Huber's harassment and her subsequent termination after a work injury. Huber allegedly made inappropriate comments, pinned Maney with his feet, bumped into her, and leered at her. Corning initially terminated Huber but reinstated him after a union grievance, assuring Maney they wouldn't interact, but Huber continued his behavior. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the retaliation/wrongful termination claim, finding Maney failed to show pretext for her termination due to physical limitations. However, summary judgment was denied for the hostile work environment claims, as triable issues of fact exist regarding Huber's conduct severity, Corning's remedial actions, and whether Corning condoned the behavior.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentRetaliation ClaimWrongful TerminationCo-worker HarassmentEmployer Liability
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greek v. Folks

This case involves plaintiff Green's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which alleges he was illegally expelled from the defendant union, Folks. Green seeks a judgment declaring his ouster void, enjoining the withholding of membership, directing full reinstatement, and awarding consequential damages. A prior appeal had dismissed claims related to wrongful termination by his employer, but affirmed the court's jurisdiction over wrongful expulsion from the union. The union argued the current complaint still focused on employer-related wrongful termination, a contention the court rejected. The court held that state courts have jurisdiction over wrongful union expulsion and associated damages, denying the union's motion to dismiss.

Union ExpulsionWrongful ExpulsionLabor LawState Court JurisdictionNLRB JurisdictionUnfair Labor PracticesReinstatementConsequential DamagesMotion to DismissSecond Amended Complaint
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vail-Ballou Press, Inc. v. Tomasky

Plaintiff discharged defendant for using abusive language, assaulting a co-worker, and insubordination. Following his discharge, defendant picketed, sent electronic mail to plaintiff's contacts, and created an internet website, detailing his version of events and accusing plaintiff of illegal conduct. Plaintiff secured an order of protection and commenced an action seeking a permanent injunction based on defamation, malicious injury, and wrongful interference. Defendant counterclaimed for wrongful termination, retaliatory discharge under Labor Law § 740, and malicious prosecution. The Supreme Court dismissed only the wrongful termination claim, leading to plaintiff's appeal, which resulted in the dismissal of all defendant's counterclaims.

Retaliatory DischargeMalicious ProsecutionDefamationInsubordinationTrespassingSummary JudgmentCounterclaimsAppellate ReviewPublic Health and SafetyWrongful Termination
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2000

Taddeo v. Ruggiero Farenga, Inc.

Plaintiff Michele Taddeo sought damages under the federal Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State and City Human Rights Laws, alleging wrongful termination by Ruggiero Farenga Inc. The court dismissed claims under the New York laws due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Taddeo had previously filed an administrative complaint. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ADEA claim, arguing Taddeo suffered no back pay loss because his earnings at a subsequent job exceeded what he would have earned with the defendant. The court denied this motion, clarifying that back pay damages accrue from the date of wrongful termination until the plaintiff secures comparable or better employment. Subsequent higher earnings terminate the accrual of further damages but do not eliminate those already suffered during the period of unemployment or lower earnings.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationBack PayDamages MitigationADEAHuman RightsFederal JurisdictionSummary JudgmentInterim Earnings
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ryan v. Carroll

Susan Ryan, a probationary police officer, was terminated from the City of New Rochelle Police Department after failing a random drug test for THC. She disputed the results, undergoing independent tests that came back negative, and sought reconsideration. Commissioner Carroll upheld the termination after an internal investigation. Ryan then filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations of her constitutional due process rights due to stigmatizing disclosure and wrongful termination, including a prior Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of worker's compensation benefits. The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Ryan's claims for lack of evidence of wrongful disclosure by defendants and the availability of an adequate state post-deprivation procedure for her procedural due process claim. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Article 78 claim.

Due Process ViolationLiberty Interest DeprivationSummary Judgment GrantedPolice Officer TerminationDrug Test ChallengeProbationary Employment RightsPublic Disclosure of InformationDefamation ClaimSection 1983 ActionArticle 78 Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Michael Mack sued The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Dr. Scott Bergman for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law section 296. Mack, an African-American employee, alleged his supervisor, Iannacone, and Dr. Bergman subjected him to racial jokes, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. Mack was terminated after failing a drug test and refusing to provide a second urine sample, which he claimed was racially motivated. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims, finding that Mack failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom for the Port Authority's liability and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of wrongful termination or a racially hostile work environment. Additionally, state law claims were dismissed as New York anti-discrimination laws do not apply to the bi-state Port Authority.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 2,625 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