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

Heagney v. European American Bank

Plaintiffs in this action allege that the defendant, European American Bank, discriminated against them based on age, violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The plaintiffs sought the court's authorization to proceed as an "opt-in" class action and to send notice to potential class members. The Court granted the motion, concluding that the case may proceed as an opt-in class suit, broadly defining the class to include employees whose employment was terminated through various mechanisms, not just early retirement, between June 1, 1984, and December 31, 1985. Furthermore, the Court determined that plaintiffs' counsel could provide written notice to other potential class members without requiring formal court authorization, citing recent Supreme Court rulings on attorney advertising and finding no legal precedent to prohibit such notice. The Court also found that the administrative filing requirements under the ADEA were satisfied for the class.

Age DiscriminationADEAClass ActionOpt-in ClassClass CertificationAttorney AdvertisingSolicitation of ClaimsEEOC Administrative ChargeFair Labor Standards ActEarly Retirement Incentive Program
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1996

Tunstall v. Sol Seifer & Co.

A judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated March 7, 1996, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing an age discrimination complaint, was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The court found the action was properly dismissed due to the plaintiff's lack of proof that younger workers were hired for a position she was qualified for after her discharge. The plaintiff's request for further discovery was rejected because she had failed to compel compliance with discovery requests during the nearly 10 years the action had been pending, despite filing a note of issue and statement of readiness.

age discriminationsummary judgmentdiscoverydismissalemployment lawappellate reviewprocedural issueslack of proofNew YorkSupreme Court
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 1999

Hardy v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiff, a 58-year-old engineer, was discharged from defendant's Corporate Research and Development Center in Schenectady County in August 1993. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination under New York's Human Rights Law and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, along with contract claims. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment for the defendant on the contract claims but denied it for the age discrimination claim. On appeal, the order was modified, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the age discrimination cause of action was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The appellate court found that the defendant successfully demonstrated legitimate economic reasons for the workforce reduction and the plaintiff's termination, and the plaintiff failed to establish that these reasons were a pretext for age discrimination, despite presenting arguments regarding alleged age-related statements and statistical evidence.

age discriminationemployment lawsummary judgmentHuman Rights LawADEAworkforce reductioneconomic justificationpretextappellate reviewemployer-employee dispute
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stratton v. DEPARTMENT FOR AGING CITY OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff Joyce Stratton sued the New York City Department for the Aging (DFTA) and Commissioner Prema Mathai-Davis for age discrimination and retaliation after her termination at age 61 and failure to be rehired. A jury found for Stratton, awarding $500,000 in damages, determining age was a factor and the non-rehire was retaliatory and willful. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence, erroneous admission of statistical evidence, and excessive damages. Plaintiff cross-moved for front pay and restoration of benefits. The court denied defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial regarding statistical evidence. The motion for a new trial due to excessive damages was denied on condition that plaintiff accept a remittitur reducing the award from $500,000 to $373,886.23. Plaintiff's motion for front pay and benefits, totaling $378,000, was granted.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawJury VerdictPost-trial MotionsJudgment as a Matter of LawNew TrialRemittiturFront PayBack Pay
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2012

DeFina v. Meenan Oil Co.

Plaintiff Anthony DeFina sued Meenan Oil Company, Tom Cronau, and Elena Zazzera, alleging age discrimination and hostile work environment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Human Rights Law. DeFina, terminated at age 53, claimed age discrimination when he was fired in March 2009. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting DeFina was terminated due to misconduct, including excessive corporate cell phone use and disruptive behavior at an oil terminal. The court found insufficient evidence for age discrimination, noting that defendants hired many older drivers and that the decision-makers were also in the protected age class. Consequently, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, dismissing it without prejudice.

Age DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentADEAEmployment TerminationEmployee MisconductCell Phone PolicyWorkplace ComplaintsSimilarly Situated EmployeesPretext
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loucks v. Board of Education of Middle County School District No. 11

Margaret R. Loucks, a former librarian for the Middle County School District No. 11, filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). She claimed that the school district's early retirement incentive plan discriminated against her because employees who retired at age 55 received 100% health insurance benefits, while she, having retired at 58, received only 50%. Loucks contended that the plan, which based eligibility on age 55, arbitrarily discriminated. The U.S. District Court, presided over by Judge Joseph F. Bianco, examined cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court found the retirement incentive plan to be permissible under the ADEA's safe harbor provision, referencing Auerbach v. Board of Education, which upheld similar early retirement plans. The Court concluded that the plan was voluntary, offered for a reasonable period, and did not arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of age by providing the same benefits to all eligible participants at 55. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, the plaintiff's motion was denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEarly Retirement IncentiveADEASummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementSafe Harbor ProvisionHealth Insurance BenefitsEmployment LawFederal CourtDiscrimination Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gronowicz v. College of Staten Island

The plaintiff filed an age discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the College of Staten Island. After receiving a right-to-sue letter for the age discrimination claim, the plaintiff's attorney mistakenly filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging national origin discrimination. The court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Title VII claim because it was not reasonably related to the original EEOC age discrimination charge. Additionally, the plaintiff's Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim was not timely filed within the 90-day statutory period after receiving the right-to-sue letter. The court also rejected the argument for equitable tolling due to attorney neglect. Consequently, the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied as moot.

Age DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIIADEAEEOC ExhaustionSubject Matter JurisdictionEquitable TollingAttorney NeglectPro Se LitigationRight to Sue Letter
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hirschberg v. Bank of America, N.A.

Plaintiff Deborah Hirsehberg sued Bank of America, N.A. for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) after her employment was terminated in October 2007. Plaintiff, a Branch Manager since 1995, was fired for violating Bank procedures by cutting and pasting customer signatures onto new account signature cards. She argued that the policy was unclear, other employees engaged in similar conduct without termination, and she was targeted due to her age by a new Consumer Market Executive. The court found that while Plaintiff established a prima facie case of age discrimination, she failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Bank's reason for termination was a pretext for unlawful age discrimination. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentADEANYSHRLBank of AmericaEmployee TerminationWorkplace Policy ViolationPretext for DiscriminationDisparate Treatment
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moylan v. National Westminster Bank USA

James Moylan, a 59-year-old assistant vice-president at National Westminster Bank USA (NatWest) with 27 years of service, sued NatWest for age discrimination following his early retirement in 1985. Moylan alleged constructive discharge and refusal to promote due to age after receiving his first-ever unfavorable job rating, being denied a promotion, and being threatened with probation and discharge by his new superior, Ernest Geib. NatWest moved for summary judgment, arguing Moylan was an at-will employee, not constructively discharged, and failed to apply for a promotion, and that the state age discrimination claim was barred by election of remedies. The court granted NatWest's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and state age discrimination claims (Counts III and IV) but denied summary judgment on the federal age discrimination claims (Counts I and II), finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding constructive discharge and pretext.

Age discriminationConstructive dischargeSummary judgmentEmployment at willRefusal to promoteFederal law claimsState law claimsPrima facie casePretextMcDonnell Douglas standard
References
21
Case No. Dkt. # 13
Regular Panel Decision

Eustace v. Corning, Inc.

Plaintiff, a former employee of Corning, Inc., was terminated in a 2009 reduction in force (RIF) and subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and fraud. She claimed her position was eliminated due to age and she was replaced by a younger worker. Corning moved for summary judgment, arguing her claims were barred by a Release she signed as part of a severance package and/or that she lacked sufficient evidence for discrimination. The court granted Corning's motion, finding the Release valid and enforceable, as it complied with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act and plaintiff retained the severance benefits. The court further determined that plaintiff's former position was genuinely eliminated and the new 'Team Leader' role was distinct. It also noted that decision-makers were older, had previously promoted plaintiff, and statistical evidence did not support discriminatory animus. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, as no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Corning's actions were a pretext for age-based discrimination or that age was the 'but-for' cause of termination.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentReduction in ForceADEARelease of ClaimsOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActPretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkFraud Claim
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,757 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