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

Lampo v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The claimant appealed three decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied additional disability benefits and rejected an application for reconsideration of a discrimination claim. The court found substantial evidence in Dr. David Smith's testimony, which indicated normal visual performance, supporting the Board's conclusion that the claimant had no loss of visual acuity. It was also noted that the claimant received 26 weeks of disability payments, and the employer's long-term disability plan, which exceeds state requirements, is governed solely by ERISA. The Board's decision to deny reconsideration of the discrimination claim was deemed neither an abuse of discretion nor arbitrary, as no new evidence was presented. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decisions.

Workers' Compensation BoardDisability BenefitsVisual AcuityERISADiscrimination ClaimReconsideration DenialSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueAppellate ReviewAffirmed Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levy v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation

This case addresses a disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Daniel Levy against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and several individuals. Levy, a Forester 1 with diabetes, hearing loss, and a learning disability, alleged his employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations and retaliated against him. The Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were untimely, accommodations were met, or that their actions were for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The Court granted the Defendants' motion, ruling that claims prior to June 4, 2013, were time-barred. Furthermore, the Court determined Levy failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions, particularly writing, even with requested accommodations, and found Defendants provided legitimate reasons for alleged retaliatory actions.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Section 504 Rehabilitation ActNew York Human Rights Law (NYHRL)Reasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentForester EmploymentDiabetesLearning Disability
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2008

Krikelis v. Vassar College

Plaintiff Arlene Krikelis sued Vassar College and Aramark Campus Services, alleging sex and disability discrimination and retaliation in her employment. Her claims included disability discrimination related to her diabetes, gender-based pay discrimination as a cook, a hostile work environment due to a coworker's harassment, and retaliation for her complaints. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the disability discrimination claims, ruling her diabetes was not a substantially limiting disability under the ADA or NYHRL. However, the court denied summary judgment on the gender-based pay discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims, finding that sufficient factual disputes warranted trial.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionWorkplace Harassment
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Keselman v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a discrimination claim. In 1986, the claimant sustained a shoulder injury and was placed on disability retirement in 1990 by the self-insured employer. In 2001, the claimant filed a discrimination claim, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found the discrimination claim untimely, as it was filed almost 11 years after the alleged discriminatory practice in 1990, exceeding the two-year statutory period under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the claimant's argument that the two-year period should start from a later Board decision.

workers' compensationdiscrimination claimtimelinessstatute of limitationsretaliationdisability retirementAppellate DivisionBoard decisionNew York lawjudicial review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frank v. Lawrence Union Free School District

Michael D. Frank, a former junior high school mathematics teacher, sued the Lawrence Union Free School District and related entities for discrimination and retaliation after being denied tenure and subsequently fired. Frank alleged discrimination based on perceived disability (morbid obesity) under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NYSHRL, and also claimed retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The court denied the defendants' summary judgment motion on Frank's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims concerning being "regarded as" disabled, and on his NYSHRL claims for both disability discrimination and "regarded as" disabled. Additionally, retaliation claims related to a harsh performance review survived. However, Frank's claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodation were dismissed as he never requested any.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)Summary Judgment MotionPerceived DisabilityObesity DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTenure Denial
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephens v. Thomas Pub. Co., Inc.

Cynthia C. Stephens, a former marketing manager at Thomas Publishing Company, Inc., filed an employment discrimination lawsuit asserting various claims including disability discrimination under the ADA and FMLA violations. Stephens was diagnosed with breast cancer in January 2000 and subsequently took medical leave. Her employment was terminated in October 2000, with disputes over whether she resigned or was fired. The court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part, dismissing claims related to gender discrimination, actual disability, record of disability, FMLA violations, and retaliation. However, triable issues of fact were found regarding her claims of discrimination based on perceived disability, specifically concerning termination (actual or constructive) and a hostile work environment.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActPerceived DisabilityHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentBreast CancerRetaliationGender DiscriminationConstructive DischargeFamily and Medical Leave Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2002

Gonzalez v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc.

Plaintiff Lohengryn Gonzalez sued Rite Aid of New York, Inc. alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for being denied a promotion due to his heart condition, and also wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law for unpaid overtime. Rite Aid moved for summary judgment, arguing Gonzalez failed to establish a prima facie discrimination case, the FLSA claim was time-barred, and supplemental jurisdiction for the state law claim should be declined. The court denied Rite Aid's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact existed for both the discrimination and wage claims. It concluded a reasonable jury could find Rite Aid discriminated against Gonzalez based on his disability (or perceived disability) and withheld overtime wages willfully.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActFair Labor Standards ActUnpaid OvertimeEmployment DiscriminationHeart ConditionPerceived DisabilitySummary Judgment MotionNew York State Labor LawWage and Hour Claim
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vinokur v. Sovereign Bank

Plaintiff Faina Vinokur sued Sovereign Bank for employment discrimination based on disability (rheumatoid arthritis), age (born 1954), and national origin (Russian), under the New York State Executive Law and New York City Human Rights Law. She also alleged failure to reasonably accommodate her disability and retaliatory termination. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court found that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for age and national origin discrimination, or that the bank's reason for termination (violation of Bank Secrecy Act policies regarding suspicious transactions) was a pretext for discrimination. Regarding disability discrimination, the court concluded that the plaintiff was reasonably accommodated and that her termination was not linked to her disability. The court also dismissed the retaliation claim, finding that while there was temporal proximity between her accommodation request and termination, the bank had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her discharge that the plaintiff failed to show was pretextual. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationAge DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationReasonable AccommodationBank Secrecy Act ViolationsFinancial TransactionsPrima Facie Case
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 8,165 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