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

Murphy v. International Business MacHines Corp.

This case involves five pro se plaintiffs who filed a complaint against International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), alleging constructive discharge in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). IBM sought to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds, including the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing charges with the EEOC. The court found that Kamalakar V. Narsule and Stephen M. Zick had not filed EEOC charges, leading to the dismissal of their claims. Erach Maneska Singpurwala's claim was dismissed due to untimeliness and issue preclusion, as he had previously sued IBM on the same facts. Michael John Shelpack's claim was also dismissed as untimely, having filed his EEOC charge more than 300 days after his employment ended. Lastly, Peter J. Murphy's claim was dismissed because he had signed a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to sue IBM for age discrimination, accepting a severance package. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against IBM for all plaintiffs.

Age DiscriminationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesEEOCRight to Sue LetterUntimely FilingWaiver of ClaimsOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActRes Judicata
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
Case No. ADJ1871643 (SDO 0291759)
Regular
Oct 23, 2017

JOSE GOMEZ vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, REHABILITATION PAROLE & COMMUNITY SERVICES, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's award of medical treatment. The defendant's Utilization Review denial was deemed untimely because their Request for Information was served more than five business days after the initial request, excluding the day after Thanksgiving. The Board clarified that the day after Thanksgiving is considered a normal business day for UR purposes under Labor Code section 4600.4. Therefore, the defendant's untimely RFI did not extend the UR deadline, and the requested medical treatment was properly authorized.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationRequest for InformationTimelinessBusiness DayLabor Code Section 4600.4Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPrimary Treating Physician
References
0
Case No. ADJ8964113
Regular
Jun 24, 2016

LISA LIU vs. ADVENTURER HOTEL, TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claim filed by Tri-County Medical Group for services provided to applicant Lisa Liu. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the lien, finding it was filed untimely beyond the 18-month statutory limit. The lien claimant appealed, arguing the filing date of February 2, 2015, was within the period because the 18-month deadline of February 1, 2015, fell on a Sunday, extending the filing to the next business day. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the ALJ's order, and found the lien timely filed. The Board determined that per procedural rules, when the last day falls on a weekend, the deadline extends to the next business day.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4903.5(b)Statute of Limitations18-month periodRules of Practice and ProcedureBusiness DayEAMS RecordJudicial Notice
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1983

Claim of McIntosh v. International Business Machines, Inc.

Claimant suffered a back injury on September 29, 1977, while working for International Business Machines, Inc. She continued to work until October 21, 1977, but subsequently experienced frequent absences due to disability. The Workers' Compensation Board made varying determinations regarding her disability, ultimately classifying it as a permanent partial disability with a 75% earning capacity. Despite conflicting medical opinions from numerous doctors, the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The decision appealed from found that claimant had a permanent partial disability, and the appellate court affirmed this decision.

Permanent Partial DisabilityEarning CapacityMedical TestimonyConflicting EvidenceBoard DeterminationBack InjuryEmployment InjuryAffirmed DecisionJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ogiba v. Business Services Co. of Utica

The plaintiff, Robert Ogiba, sued his former employer, Business Services Company of Utica (BSC), alleging age discrimination under the ADEA after his termination as a copier technician during a company-wide downsizing in 1992. Ogiba claimed his termination was due to his age, citing comments made by superiors and the retention of younger employees. BSC countered that Ogiba was terminated due to unsatisfactory job performance compared to coworkers, which was the criterion used for a reduction in force. The court found that while Ogiba met the satisfactory performance element of a prima facie case, he failed to provide sufficient evidence to infer age discrimination, noting the 'same actor inference' and the innocuous nature of alleged discriminatory comments. Consequently, BSC's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentADEADisparate TreatmentReduction in ForceJob PerformancePrima Facie CaseEvidentiary StandardDiscrimination Inference
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 2,959 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