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

Lowcher v. Beame

Plaintiff, a former school secretary, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, the New York Teachers’ Retirement System, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. She alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection after her application for accident disability benefits was denied. The Medical Board of the New York Teachers’ Retirement System determined her disability was not proximately caused by a 1970 assault, and denied her requests for legal representation, witnesses, and access to a referred physician's report. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Metzner denied the motion, ruling that while a full adversarial hearing was not required, the plaintiff was entitled to know the evidence upon which the Retirement System made its determination, implying a due process violation in denying access to the medical report.

Due ProcessEqual ProtectionCivil Rights ActionDisability BenefitsAccident DisabilityAdministrative LawMedical BoardRight to CounselCross-ExaminationAccess to Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

This case examines the State Division of Human Rights' power to dismiss complaints for administrative convenience. Six employees initially filed age discrimination complaints against their employer (petitioner) with the Division. A subsequent federal action resulted in a settlement, with only one of the six employees receiving proceeds. The Division later dismissed the state complaints for administrative convenience due to the burden of prolonged hearings. The State Human Rights Appeal Board reversed this dismissal, arguing it denied due process. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appeal Board's order, holding that the Division's dismissal was not 'purely arbitrary' and that the complainants still had access to State court remedies, thus satisfying due process requirements. The Appeal Board exceeded its limited review powers by substituting its judgment for that of the Division.

Administrative ConvenienceAge DiscriminationHuman Rights LawScope of ReviewDue ProcessStatute of Limitations TollingState Division of Human RightsHuman Rights Appeal BoardJudicial DiscretionEmployer Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
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
Apr 25, 2019

Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. Baxter Cnty.

The case centered on Human Rights Defense Center's (HRDC) challenge against Baxter County's postcard-only mail policy at the Baxter County Jail, alleging violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. HRDC contended the policy unlawfully restricted its ability to send publications to prisoners and that it lacked proper notice for rejected mail. The Court denied the County's motion for reconsideration and dismissed HRDC's First Amendment claim, upholding the policy as rationally related to legitimate penological interests in security, cost-savings, and efficiency. However, a technical due process violation was found for certain August 5, 2016 mailings due to insufficient reasons for rejection, leading to a $4.00 nominal damages award for HRDC. All other Fourteenth Amendment claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Prison mail policyFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessPrisoner rightsConstitutional lawPenological interestsContraband reductionJail efficiencyNominal damages
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF HEMPSTEAD SCHOOL D.

The plaintiff, a tenured Director of Pupil Personnel Services for the Hempstead School District, had his position eliminated. A new position, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, was created with similar duties, but the plaintiff was not offered it nor given a pre-termination hearing. The plaintiff sued, alleging violations of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and New York Education Law section 2510(1). The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff was deprived of a property right without procedural due process. The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a pre-termination hearing on the 'similarity' of the positions. A trial is deemed necessary to determine the actual similarity of the jobs and whether the plaintiff suffered actual injury from the denial of due process.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentProperty InterestTenured AdministratorPosition EliminationPre-termination HearingJob SimilarityEducation LawMotion to DismissCompensatory Damages
References
5
Case No. CV-06-5848
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2007

Berrios v. STATE UNIV. OF NEW YORK AT STONY BROOK

This civil rights action was brought by Miguel Berrios, Ann Berrios, and Kimberly Conlon against the State University of New York at Stony Brook and individual faculty members, alleging violations of their First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. The claims stemmed from alleged retaliation following Dr. Berrios's discovery of scientific data falsification by a defendant and subsequent harassment. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The court granted in part and denied in part, dismissing Dr. Berrios's claims predating a prior settlement due to res judicata, Kimberly Conlon's freedom of association claim, and all Plaintiffs' Due Process claims. Other claims related to First Amendment rights were allowed to proceed, with further factual development needed on issues of qualified immunity and statute of limitations.

Civil RightsFirst AmendmentDue ProcessRetaliationFree SpeechFreedom of AssociationRes JudicataEleventh Amendment ImmunityMotion to DismissPublic Employment
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mohawk Finishing Products, Inc. v. State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner challenged a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding of unlawful discriminatory practice against the petitioner. The original complaint stemmed from the petitioner allegedly retaliating against an employee for opposing perceived sex discrimination, although the Division of Human Rights found no actual sex discrimination. The court had previously annulled and remitted the case due to an inconsistency, but the Board failed to clarify its findings. This court now rules that retaliation for opposing practices mistakenly believed to be unlawful is not protected under the Human Rights Law if the underlying practice was, in fact, lawful. Consequently, the Board's determination against the petitioner is annulled, and the petition is granted.

RetaliationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAdministrative ReviewAppellate ReviewUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeSubstantial EvidenceClarification of FindingsEmployment Law
References
6
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
Showing 1-10 of 13,884 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