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

Dash v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of US

Kenneth Dash, a black employee, sued Equitable Life Assurance Society and Equicor-Equitable HCA Corp. for racial discrimination in employment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging unfair job evaluations, denied promotion, and retaliatory discharge. Defendants moved for dismissal or summary judgment. The court, applying Patterson v. McLean Credit Union retroactively, dismissed claims of discriminatory job evaluations, discriminatory discharge, and retaliatory discharge under § 1981. However, the court denied the motion for summary judgment regarding the discriminatory denial of promotion claim, finding a question of fact as to whether the promotion to Team Leader constituted an opportunity for a "new and distinct" contractual relationship. The promotion claim will proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Promotion DenialRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissPatterson v. McLean Credit UnionNew and Distinct Relation
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cully v. Milliman & Robertson, Inc.

Plaintiff Frances Cully sued her former employer, Milliman & Robertson, Inc., alleging racial harassment and discriminatory discharge based on race, violating the New York Human Rights Law and City Ordinance. Plaintiff, a white female, claimed constant harassment from non-white co-workers and discriminatory treatment from a black supervisor. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of evidence for discriminatory motive, insufficient support for a hostile environment claim, and plaintiff's failure to meet City law prerequisites. The court denied defendant's motion, finding sufficient evidence for both discriminatory discharge and hostile environment claims, and ruling that plaintiff's non-compliance with the City law notice requirement was not a condition precedent for the lawsuit.

Racial HarassmentDiscriminatory DischargeHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionNew York Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights OrdinanceReverse DiscriminationBurden-Shifting AnalysisMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie Case
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

W & G Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board

This court case addresses whether an arbitrator's decision, upholding a 'just cause' discharge of an employee after a compensable accident, prevents the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) from hearing a claim of discriminatory discharge under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The court ruled that such an arbitration decision does not preclude the WCB, emphasizing the overriding public policy to have retaliatory discharge claims determined by the WCB as the statutorily mandated exclusive forum. It distinguishes between a contractual just cause discharge and a discriminatory firing, noting that the former could be a pretext for the latter. The court denied the petition to preclude the WCB, asserting that the public policy underlying Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 takes precedence over issue preclusion principles. It also suggests that the WCB can consider arbitration decisions as persuasive evidence but not conclusive.

Workers' Compensation Law § 120Discriminatory DischargeRetaliatory FiringIssue PreclusionArbitration AwardPublic PolicyWCB JurisdictionCPLR Article 78Just Cause DischargeCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colon v. Fashion Institute of Technology

This case involves plaintiffs Genette Colon and Elvimar Rivas, who sued their former employer, the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), and several individual defendants, alleging racial and pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA violations. Colon brought claims for FMLA interference and retaliation, and discriminatory treatment and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Rivas filed claims for pregnancy discrimination, discriminatory discharge, and hostile work environment under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court, presided over by Judge Harold Baer, Jr., granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court denied summary judgment on Colon's FMLA interference and retaliation claims and Rivas's NYCHRL pregnancy discrimination and discharge claims, finding material issues of fact. However, summary judgment was granted for defendants on Colon's § 1981 discriminatory treatment and retaliation claims, and Rivas's § 1981 and NYCHRL hostile work environment claims, concluding these claims lacked sufficient evidence of adverse action or discriminatory intent.

Race DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationFMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentWrongful TerminationEmployment Law42 U.S.C. 1981NYCHRL
References
46
Case No. 91-CV-1050
Regular Panel Decision

Bartz v. Agway, Inc.

Patricia A. Bartz filed an action against Agway, Inc., alleging sex and age discrimination following her discharge during a company reorganization and subsequent failure to be rehired. While a jury found no age discrimination under ADEA, the court addressed her Title VII sex discrimination claims. The court acknowledged Bartz established a prima facie case but found Agway articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions, primarily focusing on Bartz's lack of managerial and specific product experience compared to other retained or hired employees. Ultimately, the court concluded that Bartz failed to prove that Agway's reasons were merely a pretext for discrimination and that discriminatory intent was the true motive. Consequently, all of Bartz's Title VII claims for discriminatory discharge and failure to rehire were dismissed.

Sex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIIADEAPrima Facie CaseBurden ShiftingPretextDiscriminatory IntentReorganization
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cusumano v. Schlessinger

The plaintiff, an operator employed by Rodin, was discharged on October 2, 1914, after agents of the International Garment Association informed Rodin that the plaintiff was not a union member, violating an agreement between Rodin's association and the defendant. The plaintiff, claiming wrongful discharge and subsequent inability to find work, was awarded $500 in the lower court. However, the defendant appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Rodin had the right to discharge an employee hired for an indefinite term with or without cause. The court also determined that the defendant's truthful statements did not constitute an actionable offense, as the responsibility for discharge rested solely with the employer. Furthermore, no evidence suggested the defendant prevented the plaintiff from seeking other employment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Wrongful dischargeLabor disputeUnion membershipEmployer-employee relationsTrade associationsContractual agreementsAppellate reviewDismissal with costsUnemploymentRight to discharge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2014

In re Haemmerle

The debtor, Thomas Haemmerle, moved to hold Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in civil contempt for violating his Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge injunction. Haemmerle's personal liability on a mortgage loan was discharged in 2006, despite Wells Fargo not being initially scheduled as a creditor. After the loan defaulted in 2011, Wells Fargo pursued collection efforts. Despite being notified of the discharge in 2013, Wells Fargo continued to make numerous phone calls and send letters asserting Haemmerle's personal liability. The court ruled that Haemmerle's personal liability was discharged by operation of law and that Wells Fargo knowingly and willfully violated the discharge injunction, awarding attorneys' fees and $69,500 in punitive damages.

Bankruptcy LawDischarge InjunctionCivil ContemptCreditor NotificationNo-Asset BankruptcyPersonal LiabilityIn Rem RightsPunitive DamagesAttorneys' FeesEmotional Distress Claims
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1997

Bush v. Raymond Corp., Inc.

Carrie Bush and her husband Alan Bush filed an action alleging sexual harassment, discriminatory and retaliatory discharge, and loss of consortium against Raymond Corporation, Inc., Chuck Sawyer, and Greg Rusnak. Carrie Bush claimed hostile work environment sexual harassment by supervisors Sawyer and Rusnak through offensive comments and sexual remarks. She alleged making complaints to Sawyer and Human Resources, which were not effectively addressed. The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law, finding triable issues of fact regarding the severity and pervasiveness of harassment and the employer's liability. However, the court granted summary judgment to defendants on the discriminatory and retaliatory discharge claims, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for these allegations.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawDiscriminatory DischargeRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilitySupervisor HarassmentIndividual Liability HRL
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper Square Hotel, LLC v. Assured Source National, LLC

Petitioner Cooper Square Hotel, LLC sought to discharge a mechanic's lien filed by respondent Assured Source National, LLC against its property. The petitioner argued that the lien should be discharged due to waivers of mechanic's liens executed by the respondent and Angel Construction Group, LLC, and because the respondent, a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), is not entitled to assert a mechanic's lien under Lien Law § 3. The court acknowledged that factual issues regarding the waivers and payments would warrant discovery. However, the court ultimately determined that the respondent, as a PEO, failed to overcome the presumption that it did not provide labor, citing *Tri-State Empl. Servs. v Mountbatten Sur. Co.* as precedent. Consequently, the court granted the petition and ordered the discharge of the mechanic's lien.

Mechanic's LienProfessional Employer OrganizationPEOLabor LawLien LawWaiver of LienConstruction ManagementPayroll FinancingCo-employerNew York State Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baldwin v. North Shore University Hospital

Plaintiff Leslie Baldwin, a former Patient Care Associate at North Shore University Hospital, alleged racial discrimination under Title VII after her suspension and ultimate discharge. Baldwin, a black woman, claimed she was treated differently than a white PCA who was arrested for forgery. The Court, presided over by Judge Spatt, reviewed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 for judgment as a matter of law. The Court found that Baldwin failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, citing a lack of evidence inferring discriminatory motive and substantial evidence showing an absence of racial discrimination at the hospital. Furthermore, the hospital provided clear, legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her suspension and discharge, including patient complaints, insubordination, and performance issues, which Baldwin failed to prove were pretextual. Consequently, the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment LawPrima Facie CaseRule 50Judgment as a Matter of LawPretextEmployee DischargePerformance IssuesInsubordination
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 1,234 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