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

Fabijanic v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

Petitioner Nicholas Fabijanic, representing the Engineers Union, sought to compel Sperry Gyroscope Division and Sperry Systems Management Division to arbitrate a grievance concerning a collective bargaining agreement. The dispute arose after Systems' employees, previously working at the Mississippi Test Facility (MTF) on the National Data Buoy Project, were offered employment with Sperry Space Support, another division, which would result in loss of union coverage. The Union contended the agreement should still apply. The court denied the motion, ruling that the employees had voluntarily accepted employment with an autonomous entity not party to the agreement, thus making the grievance non-arbitrable under the existing contract.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceUnion RepresentationEmployee TransferSperry Rand CorporationNational Labor Relations BoardFederal CourtLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Edison Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an appeal by Con Edison against a decision by the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Division found Con Edison discriminated against Pamela Easton, a Black female employee, based on sex and race by denying her promotions to management positions. Easton, despite seniority and experience, was bypassed for promotions in favor of less experienced white male employees whom she had often trained. The Division ordered Con Edison to offer Easton a supervisory position with back pay, benefits, and $10,000 for humiliation and mental anguish. The dissenting judge believes there was substantial evidence to support the Division's determination and would have confirmed its order, thereby dismissing Con Edison's petition.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationPromotional DenialSubstantial Evidence ReviewAdministrative Agency DecisionHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionSeniority
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377

The Attorney-General initiated an action seeking a permanent injunction against the Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377, its president Murray Brodsky, and business agent Jack Flaum. The complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in an illegal combination, violating New York's Donnelly Anti-Trust Law (General Business Law § 340), by coercing manufacturers and retailers in the smoked fish industry to deal exclusively with Distributors Division members. Although the defendants claimed exemption as a bona fide labor union, the court found that the Distributors Division was merely a jobbers association disguised as a union to create a monopoly and restrain trade. The organization's activities involved threats, intimidation, and misleading picketing to compel adherence to its demands, ultimately harming competition and forcing retailers to pay higher prices. Consequently, the court ruled that the injunction should be granted, concluding that the Distributors Division was not a legitimate labor union and its practices were illegal.

anti-trustmonopolylabor unioninjunctiontrade restraintGeneral Business LawDonnelly Actjobbers associationcoercionpicketing
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1994

Hone v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Petitioner, a sportswriter for The Daily Star, was discharged following multiple complaints of harassment against female co-workers and other women, despite receiving prior warnings and counseling. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging his termination was based solely on an earlier arrest. The Division investigated the claim and found no probable cause to support an unlawful discriminatory practice. Petitioner then sought to annul this determination in Supreme Court, which dismissed his application. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the Division's determination was rational, not arbitrary or capricious, and its investigative process was fair.

Employment DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentWrongful TerminationHuman Rights LawAdministrative ReviewProbable CauseJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionExecutive Law § 298CPL § 170.55
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Baker Hall, Inc.

Baker Hall, Inc. initiated a proceeding to annul a State Division of Human Rights determination that found the company unlawfully discriminated against a black employee by terminating him for sleeping on the job, while a white employee received only a suspension for a similar rule violation. The State Division had ordered re-employment and back pay. The court, however, annulled the determination, finding a lack of substantial evidence to support the commissioner's finding of discrimination. The court noted strong evidence that the complainant was indeed asleep on the job multiple times and that his termination was justified, distinguishing his situation from that of the white employee. The matter was remitted to the State Division for further proceedings to assess if Baker Hall's process of handling the charges against the complainant was discriminatory, while rejecting arguments concerning delay and res judicata.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSleeping on the JobRule ViolationDisparate TreatmentHuman Rights LawExecutive LawDue ProcessArbitrator's Findings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1991

New York City Transit Authority v. State Division of Human Rights

This case involves an appeal concerning the measurement of damages for a complainant's mental anguish due to sex discrimination by the New York City Transit Authority. The complainant, a bus driver, experienced multiple instances of discrimination related to her pregnancy, including denial of restricted duty and forced unpaid leave, which led to significant emotional distress. While the Administrative Law Judge and the State Commissioner of Human Rights awarded $450,000 for mental anguish, the Appellate Division reduced this award to a maximum of $75,000. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that it failed to apply the proper standard of review by not giving deference to the Commissioner's assessment and by inadequately comparing the award to similar cases. The matter was remitted to the Appellate Division for reconsideration.

Sex DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationMental Anguish DamagesCompensatory DamagesAppellate ReviewHuman Rights LawStandard of ReviewMiscarriageRetaliationRestricted Duty
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Division of Human Rights v. Parkview Auto Sales, Inc.

The court granted in part the petition to annul a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights. While substantial evidence supported the compensatory damages award for mental anguish and humiliation, the back pay award of $25,620 was vacated. The back pay calculation was based on projections rather than actual salary and benefits of a co-worker and failed to account for unemployment compensation received by the complainant. The matter was remitted to the Division to properly determine the back pay amount, reduced by unemployment compensation, and to conduct a hearing if advised. The Division's petition to enforce the determination was granted except for the vacated back pay award.

Human Rights LawCompensatory DamagesBack PayMental AnguishHumiliationUnemployment BenefitsRemittiturJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawEmployment Law
References
8
Case No. No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Clifton Park Apartments v. New York State Division of Human Rights

CityVision, a non-profit, filed a discrimination complaint against Pine Ridge Apartments with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). After DHR dismissed the initial complaint, Pine Ridge's attorney sent a letter to CityVision and employee Leigh Renner threatening litigation for "false, fraudulent and libelous" allegations. In response, CityVision and Renner filed a retaliation complaint, which DHR upheld, finding the letter to be an adverse action. The Appellate Division annulled DHR's determination, concluding that the letter did not constitute adverse action and DHR improperly shifted the burden regarding protected activity. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that a threat of litigation can indeed constitute adverse action under the Human Rights Law, supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court remitted the matter to DHR for proper analysis of the "protected activity" element, as DHR had improperly shifted the burden of proof.

Retaliation claimHuman Rights LawAdverse actionThreat of litigationFamilial status discriminationBurden of proofProtected activityHousing discriminationAppellate reviewAdministrative law
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 5,753 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