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

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. 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
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Bank Note Co. v. State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns a petitioner challenging a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a decision from the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The original finding stated that the petitioner discriminated against Lorraine Voigt and other female employees regarding pregnancy-related disability benefits. The court annulled the board's determination, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of discrimination. The petitioner had denied Ms. Voigt's claim as untimely according to section 217 of the Disability Benefits Law. The court found that the Human Rights Law does not compel an employer to pay benefits for pregnancy-related disability if the employer would not pay similar disability claims for male employees under the same timeliness rules, which the petitioner consistently applied.

Pregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawHuman Rights LawTimeliness of ClaimSex DiscriminationEqual TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAnnulmentSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc.

Wanda Thompson, a Black employee, alleged racial discrimination after being laid off from her construction secretary position. She claimed she was transferred to poor field offices, received less pay than Caucasian secretaries, and was ultimately terminated, despite an "excellent" performance rating, while a less senior white employee assumed her former transit secretary role. The employer was required to hire minority workers and allegedly placed only minority clerical employees in temporary field positions. The court found that the Division of Human Rights’ determination of "no probable cause" lacked a rational basis, concluding that discrimination could be inferred from the circumstances. Therefore, the court deemed the Division's dismissal of Thompson's complaint arbitrary and capricious, reversing their decision.

Racial DiscriminationWrongful TerminationEqual Employment OpportunityAdministrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProbable CauseSeniorityPay DisparityWorkplace ConditionsField Office
References
4
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

Aronson v. New York City Employees Retirement System

Esther Aronson, a former New York City social worker, sued the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS) for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Aronson sought reinstatement in NYCERS, arguing that her pension rights were unlawfully terminated without due process when she was unable to transfer pension plans in May 1988, five years after her dismissal from city service in 1983. NYCERS moved for dismissal, asserting a statute of limitations defense. The court converted the motion to summary judgment and ruled in favor of NYCERS, concluding that Aronson's cause of action accrued on June 1, 1983, the date of her termination, as she knew or should have known of the impact on her pension rights at that time. Consequently, her claims were dismissed as time-barred.

Pension ForfeitureStatute of LimitationsDue Process Clause42 U.S.C. Section 1983Workers' Compensation BenefitsEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentAdministrative CodeRetirement PlansConstitutional Rights
References
9
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

Independent Ass'n of Publishers' Employees, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co.

Plaintiffs, the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees, Inc. (IAPE) and ten Canadian employees, sued defendant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The plaintiffs claimed that Dow Jones violated its fiduciary obligations by changing the Profit-Sharing Retirement Plan's benefit allocation formula, which resulted in reduced benefits for Canadian employees due to currency conversion. Dow Jones argued it was not a fiduciary for this specific act or that the action was not a breach, asserting the right to amend plan contributions. The court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, found that Dow Jones's fiduciary duties under ERISA did not extend to the method of calculating employer contributions or modifying non-accrued benefits. The court concluded that both the Plan provisions and ERISA allowed prospective changes in contributions by the employer, and therefore, Dow Jones had not breached any fiduciary duty. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

ERISAFiduciary DutyProfit-Sharing PlanBenefit AllocationSummary JudgmentNon-Accrued BenefitsPlan AmendmentEmployer ContributionsCanadian EmployeesDistrict Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laverack & Haines, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns an age discrimination complaint filed by employee George Burns against his former employer, Laverack & Haines, Inc., following the elimination of his job during company downsizing. The State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) and the Appellate Division initially ruled in favor of Burns. However, the New York Court of Appeals reversed, finding that while Burns established a prima facie case of age discrimination, the employer successfully rebutted it by demonstrating that the termination was due to severe economic downturns and the elimination of the Claims Manager position across all branch offices. The Court emphasized that an employer is not legally obligated to create new positions or displace other employees to retain a terminated employee due to economic restructuring. Consequently, the Court granted the employer's petition, annulled the SDHR determination, and dismissed Burns's complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationCompany DownsizingEconomic ConditionsPrima Facie CaseEmployer RebuttalNon-discriminatory ReasonHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewNew York Court of Appeals
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 8,194 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