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

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peck v. HUDSON CITY SCHOOL DIST., HUDSON, NY

The Court addressed defendant Hudson City School District's (HCSD) motion in limine regarding various evidentiary matters in a sexual harassment case brought by an employee against HCSD and a maintenance worker, John Walsh. The plaintiff alleged hostile work environment and quid pro quo harassment under Title VII. The Court denied HCSD's motions to exclude evidence of harassment prior to December 1, 1995, evidence of another employee's harassment, evidence related to Walsh's meeting with a student, and evidence concerning Walsh's resignation. The Court granted HCSD's motions to preclude the plaintiff from testifying about certain employee statements (unless within scope of authority) and to prevent introduction of evidence regarding HCSD's subsequent change in sexual harassment policy. The Court reserved decision on precluding Dr. Gilly's medical testimony pending further explanation from the plaintiff.

Motion in LimineSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIContinuing Violation ExceptionEvidentiary RulingsFederal Rules of EvidenceFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureTreating Physician TestimonyHearsay
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Perniciaro

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the second degree and harassment after a nonjury trial. The appellate court modified the judgment, reversing the conviction of harassment and vacating the sentence imposed on it. The harassment count of the indictment was dismissed because the complainant failed to identify which of five individuals, including the defendant, made the threats, and the crime of harassment was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment was affirmed as modified regarding the reckless endangerment conviction.

Appellate ReviewReckless EndangermentHarassmentCriminal ConvictionNonjury TrialJudgment ModificationEvidence InsufficiencyReasonable DoubtDismissal of ChargesNew York Law
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02579 [193 AD3d 1305]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Matter of New York Off. for People with Dev.al Disabilities (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO)

The New York Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (petitioner) sought to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated employee Chad Dominie, who was found to have sexually harassed a coworker. The arbitrator had ordered Dominie's reinstatement despite sustaining multiple charges of sexual harassment, citing mitigating factors. Supreme Court granted the petition, vacating the award and remitting for a new penalty before a different arbitrator. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that the arbitrator's unconditional reinstatement of Dominie violated the strong public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court emphasized the egregious and escalating nature of Dominie's conduct, concluding that the award failed to protect other employees and conflicted with the employer's obligation to eliminate sexual harassment.

Sexual HarassmentWorkplace SafetyArbitration ReviewPublic Policy ViolationEmployee MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsReinstatement OrderAppellate Court DecisionCollective BargainingEmployer Responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carter v. Caring for the Homeless of Peekskill, Inc.

This Title VII action concerns a male employee, Mr. Larry Carter, who alleged sexual harassment and constructive discharge by Dr. Janet Foy, Chairman of the Board of Directors of his employer, Caring for the Homeless of Peekskill, Inc. The alleged harassment followed the termination of a consensual sexual relationship between Carter and Foy. After a jury found in favor of Carter, the defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court examined the alleged incidents of harassment, including off-premises confrontations and a request for resignation, and concluded that they did not constitute a hostile work environment or constructive discharge under Title VII standards. The court determined that the issues arose from a 'failed affair' rather than workplace harassment. Consequently, the defendants' motion was granted, and judgment was entered in their favor.

Sexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIIJury Verdict OverturnedJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictHostile Work EnvironmentFailed Personal RelationshipEmployment LawFederal District CourtEmployee Rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sowemimo v. D.A.O.R. Security, Inc.

Plaintiff Debrah Sowemimo sued D.A.O.R. Security, Inc., her supervisor Mohammed Islam, the NYC Department of Homeless Services (DHS), and Deputy Director Leandra Barbieri, alleging employment discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliatory discharge, racial discrimination, negligence, and intentional torts. Sowemimo claimed Islam sexually harassed and assaulted her, and Barbieri made racial slurs. The court denied summary judgment for D.A.O.R. on sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge claims, and for Islam on sexual harassment and intentional torts. However, summary judgment was granted for DHS and Barbieri on all claims, and for D.A.O.R. on negligence and intentional torts, finding DHS was not Sowemimo's employer and D.A.O.R.'s conduct didn't meet the threshold for emotional distress.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliatory DischargeRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawEmployer LiabilityVicarious Liability
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yukoweic v. International Business Machines, Inc.

The plaintiff, an independent contractor, sued Tad Technical Services Corporation and IBM, alleging sexual harassment and hostile work environment under Executive Law § 296. He claimed constant intimidation and ridicule from male co-workers regarding his sexual preference and relationship with his female housemate while working at IBM's facility in Poughkeepsie. Despite moving workspaces and complaining to supervisors, the alleged harassment continued, leading to the termination of his assignment. Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no evidence that the harassment was predicated on the plaintiff's gender, a necessary element for a hostile environment claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish the harassment was 'based upon his gender' as required by Executive Law § 296, noting that the plaintiff himself participated in the conversations and no disparate treatment based on gender was shown.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentGender DiscriminationExecutive Law § 296Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIndependent ContractorMale-to-Male HarassmentBurden of ProofEmployment Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beattie v. Farnsworth Middle School

Plaintiff Patricia Beattie, a part-time paraprofessional, filed a sex discrimination action against the Guilderland Central School District and several individual defendants, alleging sexual harassment by Roger Levinthal and retaliation after she reported the harassment. The court addressed motions to dismiss, finding that the sexual harassment claims were largely time-barred under Title VII due to the continuing violation exception not applying, and employer liability for co-worker harassment was not established for the physical acts. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim, finding sufficient facts to support a prima facie case. Individual defendants' motions to dismiss for individual liability under HRL and Section 1983 were granted, except for Roger Levinthal. The Section 1985 conspiracy claim was also dismissed for lack of specific discriminatory animus.

Sexual harassmentRetaliationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSection 1983Continuing violation doctrineHostile work environmentEmployer liabilityIndividual liabilityPrima facie case
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Susko v. Romano's MacAroni Grill

Plaintiff Karen M. Susko sued her former employer, Romano's Macaroni Grill, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII. Susko reported multiple incidents of alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker, Daniel Fabrizio, including touching, attempted kissing, patting, and threats of physical violence, which occurred between October 1996 and March 1997. Although Romano's responded by warning and eventually terminating Fabrizio, Susko claims the company failed to take adequate action to prevent further harassment. Romano's moved for partial summary judgment on the sexual harassment claim, arguing that the incidents did not constitute a hostile work environment and that their response was reasonable. The court denied the motion, finding sufficient factual support for a hostile work environment claim and a remaining factual issue regarding the reasonableness of Romano's employer response.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityCo-worker HarassmentRetaliation ClaimFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56DiscriminationWorkplace Harassment Policy
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schiraldi v. AMPCO System Parking

Plaintiffs Henrietta Schiraldi and Michelle Buscaglia sued their employers, AMPCO System Parking, ABM Industries Inc., and manager Jay Essene, for hostile environment sexual harassment by co-worker Tyrone Blackwell under Title VII, along with state-law negligence and respondeat superior claims. Schiraldi additionally alleged wrongful termination in retaliation for reporting the harassment. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion, ruling against vicarious liability for intentional torts and dismissing negligence claims under Workers' Compensation Law. It found that the employer provided a reasonable avenue for complaint and took immediate, adequate remedial actions once notified of the harassment, thereby dismissing the Title VII hostile work environment claims. Schiraldi's retaliation claim was also dismissed for lack of a causal connection, as she was fired for using a racial epithet rather than for reporting harassment.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary JudgmentRetaliationCo-worker HarassmentEmployer LiabilityWorkers' CompensationNegligenceRespondeat Superior
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 495 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