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

In re Arbitration between New York State Department of Correctional Services & New York State Correctional Officers

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order vacating an arbitration award. Petitioners, the Department of Correctional Services and Governor's Office of Employee Relations, challenged an arbitrator's decision to grant a correction sergeant, Charles Hannigan, approximately $4,000 in vacation and holiday accruals. The arbitrator had initially issued an award with a 45-day suspension for Hannigan and then retained jurisdiction to ensure "made whole" implementation. Petitioners argued the arbitrator exceeded his power by reopening the arbitration. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the award, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court found that the arbitrator's retention of jurisdiction and subsequent reopening of the award violated explicit limitations in the collective bargaining agreement.

Arbitration awardVacaturArbitrator's jurisdictionCollective bargaining agreementPublic employmentCorrection officerBack payEmployee benefitsWaiverScope of arbitration
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rumsey v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Plaintiffs, employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services and military reservists, challenged Departmental Directive # 2212, which allowed the rescheduling of their regular days off to coincide with military drills. They claimed this violated their rights under federal and state military laws and the Equal Protection Clause, arguing it discriminated against them by not requiring similar rescheduling for other types of leave. The defendants asserted the directive was necessary to address staffing shortages and prevent abuse of military leave, noting that pass days were routinely rescheduled for various other reasons. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the directive did not constitute discrimination, as it did not require 'special accommodations' for reservists beyond what was afforded to other employees, consistent with the precedent set in Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.

Military LeaveEmployment RightsWork ScheduleDiscrimination ClaimSummary Judgment MotionCollective BargainingSeniority RightsDepartmental DirectiveFederal LawState Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. 08-cv-6567L
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. NYS Department of Corrections Attica Correctional Facility

Plaintiff Stefanie A. Davis, a former employee of the New York State Department of Corrections at Attica Correctional Facility, filed a lawsuit alleging race and gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. She claimed her supervisor assigned her a disproportionate number of minority inmates, and she faced retaliation after complaining. Defendant's initial motion for summary judgment was granted for all claims except retaliation. Following this, Defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment on the remaining retaliation claim. The court granted Defendant's second summary judgment motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation, specifically noting the absence of protected activity and materially adverse employment action.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationProtected ActivityAdverse Employment ActionPro Se Litigant
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Civil Service Employees Association (C.S.E.A.) filed an Article 78 application to challenge actions taken by the City of White Plains and the Public Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.). C.S.E.A. sought to vacate a resolution where the City recognized a different employee organization (S.I.W.A.) for a portion of its employees, thereby altering C.S.E.A.'s bargaining unit, and to annul a P.E.R.B. order upholding the City's action. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing improper venue and that it was not a proper party. The court determined that Albany County was the correct venue and that the City was a proper party. The central issue was whether the City could unilaterally change bargaining unit composition without C.S.E.A.'s consent or a decertification petition. The court ultimately denied C.S.E.A.'s requested relief, agreeing with P.E.R.B. that public employers can recognize different employee organizations once an incumbent's unchallenged representation status period expires, in accordance with Civil Service Law sections 204 and 208.

Public Employment RelationsCollective Bargaining UnitsEmployee Organization RecognitionTaylor LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 CPLRBargaining Unit AlterationDecertification ProceedingsPublic Employer RightsVenue Disputes
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1988

Torres v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

The petitioner, a Rikers Island correction officer, sought to annul the New York City Employees’ Retirement System’s denial of his application for accident disability retirement benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, finding that the Medical Board and Board of Trustees' determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court found that the petitioner's injuries occurred after he completed his tour of duty and signed out, while leaving the premises on a Correction Department bus, not in the actual performance of city service. This decision was based on Administrative Code of the City of New York § 13-168, which requires injury during city service for eligibility. The court also clarified that eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits was not binding on the Medical Board for accident disability benefits, referencing Administrative Code § 13-176 (c).

accident disability retirementRikers Island correction officercity serviceNew York City Employees’ Retirement SystemMedical BoardBoard of TrusteesCPLR Article 78workers' compensationadministrative coderetirement benefits
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07007
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision)

Dana Favreau, an employee, faced dismissal by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision after allegedly filing false incident reports against her supervisor. Her union, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., initiated a grievance that led to arbitration. The arbitrator dismissed some charges pre-hearing and all remaining charges when the respondent refused to participate in the evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, finding the arbitrator exceeded her authority. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that the arbitrator acted within her authority and consistent with the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), thereby granting the petitioners' application to confirm the arbitration award and denying the respondent's cross-motion to vacate.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceDismissal from ServiceAbuse of AuthorityJudicial ReviewAppellate ReversalDue ProcessEvidentiary HearingSummary Judgment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. City of New York Department of Correction

Plaintiff Collette J. Scott sued Norman Seabrook, the Corrections Officers’ Benevolent Association of the City of New York (COBA), and the City of New York Department of Corrections (DOC), alleging sexual assault, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and state law. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended granting summary judgment for all defendants on retaliation claims and for DOC on hostile work environment, but denying it for the Seabrook defendants on the hostile work environment claim. District Judge Sidney H. Stein adopted this recommendation in its entirety after de novo review. The Court dismissed all claims against DOC and retaliation claims against Seabrook defendants but denied summary judgment for Seabrook defendants on the hostile work environment claim.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIILabor Union LiabilitySex DiscriminationCorrectional OfficersMagistrate Judge RecommendationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Correctional Officer & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Elsie Pierre, a correction officer, sustained a work-related injury in May 2004, leading to workers’ compensation leave. Respondent Department of Correctional Services initiated termination proceedings, but a medical evaluation by respondent's designated physician on September 15, 2005, found her unfit for duty. Pierre's physician, Sanford Wert, later cleared her for work on June 12, 2006, a finding supported by a Hearing Officer who recommended reinstatement with retroactive pay. Respondent, however, rejected the full retroactive award, granting pay only from October 12, 2007, arguing that Pierre had not properly exhausted administrative remedies for the earlier date and that an independent evaluation was lacking. Petitioners challenged this limited retroactive pay, but the Court confirmed the respondent's determination, dismissing the petition and upholding the October 12, 2007, start date for back pay.

Workers' Compensation LeaveRetroactive Back PayCivil Service LawAdministrative ReviewFitness for DutyMedical Evaluation DisputeCorrection Officer EmploymentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial DiscretionAppellate Court Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 6,090 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