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

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Housing Authority Tenant Selection Division v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) initiated a proceeding to review an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that NYCHA discriminated against Constance Orlando, a mentally disabled public housing applicant. The court found insufficient evidence to support the discrimination claim. While acknowledging that denying housing solely based on mental disability is unlawful, the court determined that NYCHA denied Orlando's application due to a valid reason: her persistent disruptive, harassing, and threatening behavior, which made her an undesirable tenant according to housing regulations. Consequently, the court granted NYCHA's petition, annulled the Appeal Board's order, denied the cross-application for enforcement, and dismissed the complaint.

DiscriminationMental DisabilityPublic HousingTenant EligibilityUndesirable TenantExecutive LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative OrderDisruptive BehaviorHarassment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1982

Weiss v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

The State Human Rights Appeal Board's order, dated July 27, 1982, concerning Anna S. Weiss and the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, has been modified. The court has remanded for further consideration finding number 23, which stated that complainant Anna S. Weiss voluntarily retired from the WCB effective August 17, 1978. Consequently, the associated directives for WCB to pay Anna S. Weiss back pay, based on the salary difference between a Senior Research Analyst and an Assistant Director of Research and Statistics for the period June 22, 1978, to August 17, 1978, and $1,000 for humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, are also subject to further review. The court noted that providing both wage difference and embarrassment damages might be duplicative or that $1,000 is sufficient for punitive purposes. The order is otherwise affirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DisputeRetirement BenefitsWage DifferentialEmotional Distress DamagesAdministrative Law AppealJudicial RemandAppellate Panel DecisionDissenting Judicial OpinionConcurring Judicial Opinion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital

A proceeding was initiated by the State Division of Human Rights to enforce an order against Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital. The hospital had discriminated against a female employee by denying disability benefits for pregnancy-related disability, despite being a self-insured employer providing benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law. The State Division's order, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, directed the hospital to pay benefits, furnish proof, and establish a nondiscrimination policy. The hospital failed to comply, leading to this enforcement action almost two years after the Appeal Board's order. The court granted the petition for enforcement, denied the hospital's cross-motion, found the enforcement proceeding timely and not barred by laches, and affirmed that the original discrimination finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Sex DiscriminationPregnancy Disability BenefitsEnforcement ProceedingHuman Rights LawWorkers' Compensation LawTimelinessLachesSubstantial EvidenceEmployer DiscriminationDisability Benefits Denial
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Bank Note Co. v. State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns a petitioner challenging a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a decision from the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The original finding stated that the petitioner discriminated against Lorraine Voigt and other female employees regarding pregnancy-related disability benefits. The court annulled the board's determination, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of discrimination. The petitioner had denied Ms. Voigt's claim as untimely according to section 217 of the Disability Benefits Law. The court found that the Human Rights Law does not compel an employer to pay benefits for pregnancy-related disability if the employer would not pay similar disability claims for male employees under the same timeliness rules, which the petitioner consistently applied.

Pregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawHuman Rights LawTimeliness of ClaimSex DiscriminationEqual TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAnnulmentSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mohawk Finishing Products, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns a proceeding to review a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board. The Board initially found no sex-based discrimination against female office workers by an employer. However, it also found that the employer discriminated against the complainant for opposing practices she believed were discriminatory, leading to her suspension and termination. The court deemed the Board's decision inconsistent because the Board concurrently concluded the employer did not engage in practices forbidden by the Human Rights Law. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter to the Board for clarification of its findings and decision.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationRetaliationAdministrative ReviewInconsistent FindingsAnnulmentRemittalExecutive Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

This case examines the State Division of Human Rights' power to dismiss complaints for administrative convenience. Six employees initially filed age discrimination complaints against their employer (petitioner) with the Division. A subsequent federal action resulted in a settlement, with only one of the six employees receiving proceeds. The Division later dismissed the state complaints for administrative convenience due to the burden of prolonged hearings. The State Human Rights Appeal Board reversed this dismissal, arguing it denied due process. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appeal Board's order, holding that the Division's dismissal was not 'purely arbitrary' and that the complainants still had access to State court remedies, thus satisfying due process requirements. The Appeal Board exceeded its limited review powers by substituting its judgment for that of the Division.

Administrative ConvenienceAge DiscriminationHuman Rights LawScope of ReviewDue ProcessStatute of Limitations TollingState Division of Human RightsHuman Rights Appeal BoardJudicial DiscretionEmployer Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas A. Galante & Son, Inc. v. State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner employer sought judicial review of a State Human Rights Appeal Board's determination, which found the employer discriminated against the complainant by terminating her employment due to pregnancy. The Board had ordered back pay and reemployment. The court's review focused on whether the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence, specifically regarding the employer's knowledge of the complainant's pregnancy. The court concluded that the evidence, based on a coworker's testimony that "everybody knew" about the pregnancy, was insufficient to establish the employer's management had such knowledge. Therefore, the court granted the petition and annulled the Board's determination.

Employment LawDiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationHuman Rights LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate CourtEmployer LiabilityBurden of Proof
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1980

Corbin, Ltd. v. State Division of Human Rights

The Human Rights Appeal Board's order, dated December 18, 1980, which upheld a finding of unlawful sex discrimination against petitioners, was unanimously annulled. The court granted the petition and dismissed the complaint, also denying the cross motion to enforce the Board's order. The decision found that the commissioner's determination lacked sufficient evidence. Specifically, the complainant was denied pregnancy-related disability benefits solely for not applying within the 26-week period stipulated by Workers’ Compensation Law § 217(1). The court deemed it speculative to assume petitioners would have denied an earlier application, noting a prior timely claim for similar benefits from this employer was paid.

Sex DiscriminationPregnancy DisabilityWorkers' Compensation LawTimeliness of ApplicationAdministrative ReviewEvidentiary StandardHuman Rights LawDisability BenefitsJudicial AnnulmentEmployment Discrimination
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 27,530 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