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

Stanford v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

The plaintiff, a provisional human rights specialist, sued her employer, the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and several individual defendants for employment discrimination. She alleged discrimination based on national origin and retaliation after her termination, which followed a history of insubordination and conflict with her supervisor. The court found no evidence to support either the national origin discrimination claim, noting similar racial backgrounds among parties, or the retaliation claim, as the Commission had encouraged employees to challenge the civil service examination in question. The decision concluded that the plaintiff's termination stemmed from an irreconcilable personal antagonism with her supervisor rather than any discriminatory reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, affirming that federal courts should not intervene in personnel decisions based on non-discriminatory grounds.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimInsubordinationProvisional Employee TerminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActEEOC ComplaintSupervisor-Employee ConflictFederal District Court CaseWorkplace Conduct
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1989

Quinn v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found that the claimant was not discriminated against by their employer. The claimant was terminated due to a work-related disability, and subsequently rejected rehire offers from the employer, despite no decrease in salary. When the claimant later sought reemployment, the employer refused. The court found that the claimant failed to prove discrimination or retaliation, and that the employer was under no contractual or legal obligation to rehire the claimant after termination. Therefore, the decision affirming that the employer did not discriminate was upheld.

Workers' CompensationDiscriminationRetaliationReinstatementTerminationEmploymentDisabilitySubstantial EvidenceRehireBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shafa v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought an employment discrimination action against Montgomery Ward Co., Inc. under Title VII, alleging termination based on national origin. The case was tried before an advisory jury, which found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. The Court concurred, concluding that the plaintiff's termination was due to insubordination and unapproved absence, not discriminatory intent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice, denying all requests for relief, including the defendant's conditional motion for attorney's fees.

employment discriminationTitle VIIterminationpro se litigationinsubordinationnational origin discriminationadvisory juryprima facie caseSecond CircuitMcDonnell Douglas framework
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Buzea v. Alphonse Hotel Corp.

The claimant was terminated by his employer on June 20, 1997, shortly after sustaining a work-related head injury and seeking medical attention. He filed a workers' compensation claim and a discrimination complaint under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, alleging he was fired for seeking medical treatment for his injury. Although a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially denied the discrimination complaint, misinterpreting the requirement for filing a claim, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the employer discriminated. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the employer violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, as the prospect of a claim motivated the retaliatory discharge.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace InjuryMedical TreatmentIntent to File ClaimAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCredibility AssessmentNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Melissa Castillo brought claims of sex discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge against Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., William Rappaport, and Herbie Gonzalez under Title VII. Castillo sought to intervene in the EEOC's action and assert additional state and city claims, while the defendant moved to compel arbitration of Castillo's claims based on an employment arbitration agreement. The court granted Castillo's motion to intervene and permitted her state and local claims to proceed under supplemental jurisdiction. The court also granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration for all of Castillo's claims, determining that the arbitration agreement was an employer-promulgated plan and the associated costs would not be prohibitively expensive. The EEOC's action was not stayed, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement, but Castillo's individual proceedings were stayed pending arbitration.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationConstructive DischargeTitle VIIArbitration AgreementInterventionEmployment DiscriminationFederal Arbitration ActSupplemental JurisdictionEEOC Enforcement Action
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Latanya Billings v. Dime Savings Bank

Claimant, a quality control analyst, was terminated by her employer after sustaining a non-work-related back injury and collecting disability benefits. She alleged that her termination was in retaliation for filing a disability claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the claimant in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 120 and 241 by terminating her due to her disability claim. The employer appealed, arguing that the termination was an inadvertent misinterpretation of its job guarantee policy. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the Board’s assessment of credibility and the inference of intentional, retaliatory conduct were supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted for further development on the issue of damages.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeDisability Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 120Workers' Compensation Law § 241Job Guarantee Policy ViolationSubstantial Evidence ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate AffirmationCredibility Determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1987

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waterfront Commission

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor (WC) and other employer-defendants, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The dispute centered on whether the WC, in its licensing capacity for pier guards, qualified as an "employer" under the ADEA. The court granted summary judgment for the WC, concluding it was not an employer in its licensing role, distinguishing it from cases involving direct employment or significant control without state police power. The court also dismissed claims against all other employer-defendants, and initially sanctioned the EEOC attorney, though this sanction was later vacated upon reconsideration. Ultimately, the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActSummary JudgmentEmployer DefinitionWaterfront CommissionLicensing AuthorityEEOCPier GuardsRule 11 SanctionsReconsiderationInterstate Compact
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Johnson & Higgins

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Johnson & Higgins (J&H) over a mandatory pre-65 retirement policy that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court previously found J&H liable and issued an injunction. J&H then sought partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for monetary and injunctive relief based on waivers signed by thirteen retired employee-directors, who had received $1,000 in exchange for waiving ADEA rights. The retired directors later repudiated these waivers, citing conflict of interest, economic duress, and undue influence. The EEOC opposed the waivers, arguing inadequate consideration, lack of voluntariness, and that J&H negotiated them without EEOC participation after a finding of liability. The District Court denied J&H's motion for summary judgment, finding material issues of fact regarding the adequacy of consideration and the voluntariness of the waivers. The court also held that waivers entered into after a finding of liability and without EEOC participation are invalid as a matter of law.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActADEAWaiversSummary JudgmentKnowing and VoluntaryConsiderationOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActOWBPARepudiation of WaiversEEOC Litigation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coscia v. Ass'n for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc.

Claimant, a staff psychologist, was injured at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc., alleging retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, including demotion and exclusion from conferences. His employment was later terminated for alleged improper personal conduct. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board both ruled against the claimant, finding no evidence of discrimination under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 and concluding that the termination was due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the Board's finding of termination solely for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationMisconductAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 10,785 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