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

Albertson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

The court ruled that rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice do not provide for granting summary judgment in an equity action concerning the determination of title for adverse claimants to a fund held by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. Consequently, the previous judgment and order were unanimously reversed, with costs awarded, and the motion was denied.

Summary JudgmentEquity ActionCivil ProcedureAdverse ClaimsFund DisputeReversed Judgment
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05464 [220 AD3d 614]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2023

Children's Magical Garden, Inc. v. Marom

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted an adverse inference charge against the defendant for spoliation of evidence. The Supreme Court found the defendant grossly negligent in spoliation. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, determined that the imposed adverse inference charge was inappropriate because it required rather than permitted the jury to draw an adverse inference. Furthermore, due to conflicting testimony, the issues of spoliation and the warrant for an adverse inference should have been presented to the jury first. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order by deleting the specific adverse inference charge, remanding the matter for a new charge, and otherwise affirming the order.

Spoliation of evidenceAdverse inference chargeGross negligenceAppellate reviewEvidentiary sanctionsCivil procedureDiscoveryJury instructionsRemandNew York law
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03030
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2023

Shapiro v. State of New York

Leonard R. Shapiro, an Administrative Law Judge, appealed an order granting summary judgment to the State of New York and individual defendants in an action alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law and 42 USC § 1983. Shapiro claimed he faced adverse employment actions, including excessive workload, temporary removal of supervisory duties, and not being considered for a senior position. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, finding that the defendants established, prima facie, that Shapiro did not suffer a materially adverse employment action for his discrimination claims, and for his retaliation claims, there was no causal connection between any protected activity and the alleged adverse actions. Consequently, the claims for aiding and abetting discrimination also failed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationNew York State Human Rights LawRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CaseEqual ProtectionUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardConstitutional Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2009

Monroe v. Xerox Corp.

Cheryl Monroe sued Xerox Corporation for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging discrimination for engaging in protected activity. Monroe contended that adverse employment actions, including a C Labor Report and a letter of reprimand, were in retaliation for her grievances and complaints. The court determined that Monroe only engaged in protected activity as of May 17, 2006, when she filed EEOC charges. The court found that the employer's subsequent actions were not sufficiently adverse to deter a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Furthermore, the court concluded that no causal connection existed between Monroe's protected activity and the alleged adverse employment actions. Consequently, Xerox's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was closed.

Employment LawRetaliationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentProtected ActivityAdverse Employment ActionCausal ConnectionDiscriminationGender Discrimination
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gaidasz v. Genesee Valley Bd. of Cooperative Education Systems

Plaintiff Bernard Gaidasz sued his employer, Genesee Valley Board of Cooperative Education Systems (BOCES), alleging discrimination in employment based on disability under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff claimed BOCES subjected him to disability-based discrimination and retaliation through counseling memoranda, denial of a day-shift transfer, and temporary reassignment. BOCES moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to establish an adverse employment action or provide evidence of discriminatory animus. The court found that the alleged actions did not constitute adverse employment actions and that the plaintiff could not rebut BOCES's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The court also dismissed the retaliation claim, citing a lack of evidence of protected activity or a causal connection to an adverse employment action. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationADAEmployment LawSummary JudgmentRetaliationAdverse Employment ActionCounseling MemorandumTransfer DenialTemporary ReassignmentAnxiety Disorder
References
34
Case No. ADJ2875706 (STK 0185271)
Regular
Mar 02, 2020

APRIL PREMO WILLIAMS vs. THE HOME DEPOT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied April Williams' petition for reconsideration of a decision finding she sustained an industrial injury. Williams sought to disqualify defense counsel, Ray Stanek, alleging he represented adverse clients and failed to object to court violations of her rights. The Board found no evidence Stanek represented adverse clients, as Williams had never been his client. Furthermore, Stanek had no affirmative duty to act on Williams' behalf regarding alleged court misconduct. Consequently, the Board found no basis for disqualification and denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAward and OpiniondisqualificationRay StanekAlbert & MackenzieHelmsman Management ServicesADAdue process
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2001

Honey v. County of Rockland

Plaintiff Alice Honey, a Radio Operator for Rockland County, initiated an action against her employer for alleged retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The retaliation claims stemmed from a disability discrimination complaint Honey filed with the EEOC in April 1996, after which she claimed adverse employment actions, including prohibited shift swaps and harassment. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment. While several of Honey's claims of adverse employment action were dismissed, the court found a genuine issue of material fact concerning the prohibition of shift swaps, linking it to the EEOC complaint. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

ADA retaliationdisability discriminationemployment lawsummary judgmentadverse employment actionshift swapEEOC complaintcausal connectionprima facie caseRockland County
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weisbecker v. Sayville Union Free School District

Plaintiff Roberta Weisbecker sued the Sayville Union Free School District, Principal Rose Castello, and Superintendent Rosemary Jones, alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Weisbecker claimed that after she became pregnant, the School District recommended her termination, forcing her to resign. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no adverse employment action or discrimination occurred. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the Title VII claim, finding no evidence of an adverse employment action, constructive discharge, or pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the court dismissed the state law claims without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Gender discriminationPregnancy discriminationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary judgmentEmployment lawAdverse employment actionConstructive dischargeSchool districtTeacher
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2011

Waters v. General Board of Global Ministries

Tylie S. Waters sued General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church (GBGM) alleging age discrimination and harassment under the ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Waters claimed various adverse employment actions, including a menial task, cancelled vacation, isolation, performance plan, EAP referral, and a two-day suspension. The court found no evidence of an objectively hostile work environment or that actions were based on Waters' age, noting many supervisors were also in a protected age class. Most alleged actions were not considered materially adverse, and legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were cited for the suspension. Consequently, the court granted GBGM's motion for summary judgment on all claims.

Age DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFederal District CourtNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawADEAEmployee PerformanceInsubordination
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. Pride Development & Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Orfelindo Cordero Ramirez filed an in limine motion seeking to preclude testimony from a witness for third-party defendant Muna Contracting Corporation. The motion arose from a personal injury action where Muna's failure to maintain employee records hindered Ramirez's ability to identify crucial witnesses to his alleged accident. United States Magistrate Judge James Orenstein recommended denying the preclusion request but suggested an alternative remedy: instructing the jury that it may draw an adverse inference against Muna due to its misconduct. District Judge Ross reviewed the Report and Recommendation, found no clear error, and adopted it in its entirety. Consequently, Ramirez's motion to preclude was denied, but the court will instruct the jury to consider an adverse inference against Muna.

In Limine MotionAdverse InferenceSpoliationDiscovery SanctionsRule 37New York Labor LawEmployee RecordsWitness PreclusionMagistrate JudgeReport and Recommendation
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 6,290 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