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

Cush-Crawford v. Adchem Corp.

This case involves allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation brought by Plaintiff Tonia Cush-Crawford against Defendant Adchem Corp. A jury found in favor of the Plaintiff on her hostile environment sexual harassment claim under Title VII, awarding $0 in compensatory damages but $100,000 in punitive damages. The Defendant moved to set aside the verdict and vacate the punitive damages award, arguing that punitive damages cannot be awarded without compensatory damages, an issue of first impression in this circuit. The Court denied the Defendant's motion, ruling that an award of compensatory damages is not a prerequisite for punitive damages in Title VII cases. The Plaintiff's motion for a new trial on damages was also denied, and the Court awarded attorney's fees and costs to the Plaintiff.

Title VIISexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesAttorney's FeesFederal Civil RightsEmployment LawRule 50 MotionRule 59 Motion
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waterson v. Plank Road Motel Corp.

Suzanne Waterson, a former employee of Best Western Inn, sued for sexual harassment and discriminatory termination. Defendants moved to bar testimony on compensatory and punitive damages and to restrict the testimony of another former employee, Anne Marie Malinowski. The court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which allows compensatory/punitive damages and jury trials for Title VII claims, was not retroactive to Waterson's alleged pre-1991 conduct. However, Waterson could seek compensatory damages and a jury trial under her supplemental New York State Human Rights Law claim, provided her state claim was dismissed for "administrative convenience." The court denied the motion to restrict Malinowski's testimony, finding it relevant to demonstrating a hostile work environment and discriminatory intent. Ultimately, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion regarding damages, allowing compensatory damages only for the state law claim, and denied the motion to restrict Malinowski's testimony.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1991RetroactivityCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesJury TrialState Law ClaimNew York State Human Rights Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laurie Marie M. v. Jeffrey T. M.

This appeal concerns a civil action for intrafamilial child sex abuse, where an 11-year-old stepdaughter was sexually abused by her stepfather. The trial court found the defendant liable for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, with the jury awarding $200,000 in compensatory damages and $275,000 in punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the finding of liability for battery but deemed both compensatory and punitive damage awards excessive. Consequently, the court ordered a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff agrees to a reduction of compensatory damages to $100,000 and punitive damages to $100,000. If the plaintiff stipulates to these reductions, the judgment, as amended, will be affirmed.

Child sex abuseIntrafamilial abuseBatteryIntentional infliction of emotional distressPunitive damagesCompensatory damagesExcessive verdictDamages reductionAppellate reviewStepfather abuse
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McIntosh v. Irving Trust Co.

The plaintiff, Douglas McIntosh, sued his former employer, Irving Trust Company, alleging race discrimination and retaliation. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff on the retaliation claim under the New York Human Rights Law, awarding significant back pay and compensatory damages for emotional distress. The defendant moved for a new trial, specifically challenging the compensatory damages award as excessive and unsupported by sufficient evidence of emotional injury. The District Court, finding the jury's award disproportionate to the evidence presented and to awards in comparable cases, conditionally granted the motion for a new trial. The new trial will be averted if the plaintiff agrees to a remittitur, reducing the compensatory damages to $20,000.

RetaliationRace DiscriminationCompensatory DamagesRemittiturNew Trial MotionJury Verdict ReviewEmotional Distress ClaimsHuman Rights LawFederal ProcedureJudicial Discretion
References
27
Case No. 09-cv-6053(PGG)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2012

MacMillan v. Millennium Broadway Hotel

Plaintiff Freddrick McMillan sued Defendant Millennium Broadway Hotel alleging racial discrimination and a hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the NYCHRL. A jury awarded him $125,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. The Court denied the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law. However, it granted a new trial on damages unless McMillan accepts a remittitur, reducing compensatory damages to $30,000 and punitive damages to $100,000, citing sparse evidence of emotional distress and constitutional limits on punitive awards.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981NYCHRLRemittiturCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesWorkplace HarassmentEmotional Distress
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suffolk County Community College v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Suffolk County Community College to review a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Division had previously found the college guilty of unlawful racially discriminatory practices and retaliation against an employee, awarding $50,000 in compensatory damages. The Division of Human Rights cross-petitioned to enforce this determination. Following a reversal and remittal by the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division reviewed the matter. The court denied the branch of the cross-petition seeking to enforce the $50,000 compensatory damages award, finding it excessive due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration, severity, or consequences of the complainant's mental anguish related to racial discrimination. The determination was otherwise confirmed, and the case was remitted to the New York State Division of Human Rights for a new award of compensatory damages not exceeding $5,000.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationCompensatory DamagesExcessive DamagesMental AnguishAdministrative Law ReviewHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewRemittalSufficiency of Evidence
References
8
Case No. 727 F. Supp. 2d 95
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2010

Menghi v. Hart

Plaintiff Jennifer Menghi sued defendants Teddy Hart and Suffolk County for civil rights violations and Drivers' Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) violations. A jury found in favor of Menghi on DPPA claims, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(b)) or a new trial (Rule 59) and sought damages reduction. Plaintiff moved for attorneys' fees. The court denied Rule 50 motions, granted in part and denied in part Rule 59 motions (ordering a new trial on damages unless plaintiff accepts remittitur to $500,000 compensatory and $100,000 punitive damages), and partially granted plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the amounts of $230,878.80 and $1,081.80 respectively.

DPPA ViolationDrivers' Privacy Protection ActVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentHarassmentEmotional DistressGraves' DiseasePTSDCompensatory DamagesPunitive Damages
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Townsend v. Exchange Insurance

Vincent Townsend sued Exchange Insurance Company, Selective Insurance Company of America, and Selective Insurance Group, Inc., alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and New York Human Rights Law (HRL), constructive discharge, compelled self-defamation, and an ERISA violation. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for back pay, front pay, punitive damages, and compensatory damages under the ADEA, as well as an age discrimination claim related to James Chavanne's hiring. The court granted dismissal of punitive damages under ADEA and HRL, compensatory damages for emotional pain under ADEA, and certain periods of back pay. The court denied dismissal of back pay from April 7, 1997, onward, and front pay (with leave to renew). The court also dismissed the age discrimination claim related to Chavanne's hiring due to lack of jurisdiction and being time-barred.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary Judgment MotionBack PayFront PayPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesConstructive DischargeERISAEEOC Exhaustion
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genovese v. County of Suffolk

The case involves plaintiff Nancy Genovese's civil action against defendants Robert Carlock and the County of Suffolk, stemming from her 2009 arrest for criminal trespass. After observing Genovese photographing a military base with a rifle case in her car, she was arrested and detained, with charges later dismissed. Genovese sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging malicious prosecution, First Amendment retaliation, and battery. A jury found Carlock liable for malicious prosecution, awarding Genovese $1,112,000 in compensatory damages. The defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new trial or remittitur of damages. The District Court, presided over by Judge Joseph F. Bianco, denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding sufficient evidence for the jury's verdict on probable cause, qualified immunity, and favorable termination. However, the Court granted the motion for remittitur, reducing the compensatory damages award to $700,000, citing the excessiveness of the original award and issues with plaintiff's summation that led to double-counting and inclusion of non-recoverable damages. The Court considered the plaintiff's acute injuries, including 78 hours of incarceration and ongoing emotional distress.

malicious prosecutionqualified immunityremittiturcompensatory damagescriminal trespasscivil rights violationjury verdict reviewemotional distresspolice misconductfederal rules of civil procedure
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case, presided over by District Judge Spatt, addresses post-trial motions concerning attorney's fees and damages following a class action. Initially, plaintiffs sued employer Robert Abbey, Inc. under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN) (settled for $110,000) and both the employer and Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act for breach of fair representation. After class decertification, the claims of fourteen plaintiffs against the Union went to a jury, which found the Union liable for breaching its duty of fair representation and awarded compensatory damages to eight of them. The Court denied the Union's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law but vacated the jury's compensatory damage award, instead granting nominal damages of $1 to each of the eight prevailing plaintiffs due to lack of evidentiary support for the monetary award. The Court also determined that plaintiffs' attorneys were entitled to recover attorney's fees for the Union's breach of duty of fair representation, calculating these fees based on reasonable hours and rates, and awarded specific amounts to the law firms Hall & Sloan ($4,775.00) and Davis & Eisenberg ($42,475.00), for a total of $47,250.00. Additionally, the Court awarded $1,177.15 in costs and denied the plaintiffs' application for an award of prejudgment interest.

Attorney's FeesNominal DamagesBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActSettlementJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsLodestar MethodClass Action Decertification
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 1,882 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