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

Bond v. Sterling, Inc.

Christine Bond sued her former employers, Sterling, Inc. and Kay Jewelers, Inc., alleging sex, disability, and pregnancy-based discrimination under federal and New York State laws. Defendants moved for partial dismissal, while Bond cross-moved for partial judgment on the pleadings and to amend her complaint. The court denied dismissal for pregnancy discrimination (Count One) and a claim for punitive damages (Count Five), but granted dismissal for disability discrimination (Count Two), finding that breast-feeding does not constitute a disability under the New York Human Rights Law. Bond's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. Her motion to amend was partially granted to add Sterling Jewelers, Inc. as a defendant and to include specific language regarding pregnancy discrimination, but denied for other proposed claims.

DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationFamily Medical Leave ActBreastfeedingEmployment LawNew York Human Rights LawCivil Rights LawMotion to DismissJudgment on Pleadings
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Payne v. Goodman Manufacturing Co.

Plaintiff Connie Payne filed a lawsuit against her former employer, Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P., alleging claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for interference and retaliation, violations of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) for maternity leave, pregnancy discrimination, and retaliation, and claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court denied summary judgment on the plaintiff's FMLA interference and retaliation claims, allowing them to proceed to trial, citing sufficient evidence of a causal connection due to temporal proximity between the FMLA request and termination. However, the court granted summary judgment on all THRA claims (pregnancy discrimination, maternity leave, and retaliation) and the EPA claim, dismissing them with prejudice. The THRA pregnancy discrimination claim failed due to a lack of direct evidence and insufficient temporal proximity. The THRA maternity leave and retaliation claims were also dismissed as they were analyzed under similar standards as the failed THRA discrimination claims. The EPA claim was dismissed because the plaintiff could not establish "equal work" compared to male co-workers, as they possessed more technical certifications and skills.

FMLATHRAEqual Pay ActPregnancy DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDiscriminationWorkplace RightsWage Disparity
References
76
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01294 [203 AD3d 708]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2022

Lefort v. Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr.

Claudia Lefort, an appellant, sued Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center for employment discrimination based on gender (pregnancy) after her position as a community access coordinator was eliminated while she was on maternity leave. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the discrimination claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, stating that the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action and that there were no triable issues of fact regarding whether the termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination or whether the defendant's reasons were pretextual. The court emphasized that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is a form of gender discrimination under both the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationSummary JudgmentNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawAdverse Employment ActionPretextTriable Issues of FactAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lambert v. McCann Erickson

Beth Lambert sued McCann Erickson, an advertising agency, alleging wrongful termination based on pregnancy, in violation of Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Lambert, a Creative Director, was terminated on March 4, 2005, while pregnant. McCann Erickson claimed her termination was due to poor performance and that the main decision-makers were unaware of her pregnancy. Lambert contended her supervisor, William Oberlander, knew of her pregnancy before recommending her dismissal. The court acknowledged weak circumstantial evidence of Oberlander's prior knowledge but found insufficient proof that pregnancy motivated his assessment or that McCann's stated reasons for termination were a pretext for discrimination. The court granted McCann Erickson's motion for summary judgment, concluding no reasonable fact-finder could infer pregnancy discrimination.

Pregnancy DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIHuman Rights LawPrima Facie CasePretextDiscriminatory IntentPerformance IssuesCircumstantial Evidence
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colon v. Fashion Institute of Technology

This case involves plaintiffs Genette Colon and Elvimar Rivas, who sued their former employer, the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), and several individual defendants, alleging racial and pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA violations. Colon brought claims for FMLA interference and retaliation, and discriminatory treatment and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Rivas filed claims for pregnancy discrimination, discriminatory discharge, and hostile work environment under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court, presided over by Judge Harold Baer, Jr., granted summary judgment in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court denied summary judgment on Colon's FMLA interference and retaliation claims and Rivas's NYCHRL pregnancy discrimination and discharge claims, finding material issues of fact. However, summary judgment was granted for defendants on Colon's § 1981 discriminatory treatment and retaliation claims, and Rivas's § 1981 and NYCHRL hostile work environment claims, concluding these claims lacked sufficient evidence of adverse action or discriminatory intent.

Race DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationFMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentWrongful TerminationEmployment Law42 U.S.C. 1981NYCHRL
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2010

Briggs v. Women in Need, Inc.

Alicia Briggs, a pro se plaintiff, sued Women in Need, Inc. (WIN) for alleged violations of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, claiming unlawful termination due to her pregnancy and related medical conditions. Briggs went on medical leave for a high-risk pregnancy, gave birth via C-section, and was later informed she was terminated after requesting a specific shift upon her return. WIN moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Briggs refused her assigned schedule. The Court denied WIN's motion, finding Briggs had plausibly alleged a prima facie case of discrimination, citing the close temporal proximity between her pregnancy and termination, and her qualifications for the role. The matter was recommitted to the assigned magistrate judge for supervision of discovery and pre-trial matters.

Pregnancy DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIWrongful TerminationMotion to DismissPrima Facie CaseCivil Rights ActFederal Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewHigh-Risk Pregnancy
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reilly v. Revlon, Inc.

Plaintiff Lisa Reilly filed this action against Revlon, Inc. and two employees, alleging employment discrimination and wrongful termination under the ADA, PDA, FMLA, and New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Reilly's claims stemmed from issues related to her pregnancy and subsequent postpartum depression, including allegations of FMLA interference and retaliation, and disability discrimination. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the FMLA and PDA claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding interference, retaliation, or pregnancy discrimination. However, the court denied summary judgment on Reilly's ADA and analogous state and city law disability discrimination claims, determining that there were triable issues regarding her disability status and the reasonableness of the requested part-time work accommodation.

Employment DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentAmericans with Disabilities ActFamily Medical Leave ActPregnancy Discrimination ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawPostpartum DepressionReasonable Accommodation
References
32
Case No. docket # 19
Regular Panel Decision

Mullin v. Rochester Manpower, Inc.

The plaintiff, Mullin, brought claims against Rochester Manpower, Inc. and Manpower, Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging discrimination based on pregnancy and unlawful termination. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The District Court, presided over by Judge Siragusa, granted the motion in part, dismissing the FMLA claims because the plaintiff failed to explicitly request leave. However, the motion for summary judgment was denied regarding the Title VII and Pregnancy Discrimination Act claims, as the court found that the defendants' inconsistent and shifting reasons for termination could suggest a pretext for discrimination.

Pregnancy DiscriminationEmployment TerminationFamily Medical Leave ActTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary Judgment MotionPretextual ReasonsDiscrimination ClaimsMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkWestern District of New York
References
21
Case No. 13-24-00206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2025

Jubilee Academies, Inc. v. Brenda McKinnon

Jubilee Academies, Inc., a charter school, appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in an employment discrimination and retaliation suit filed by Brenda McKinnon. McKinnon alleged discrimination based on gender and pregnancy and retaliation for complaints made to Human Resources and her supervisor. Jubilee argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because McKinnon failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not including specific allegations of sex/pregnancy discrimination or protected activity in her EEOC charge. The appellate court agreed with Jubilee, finding McKinnon's charge insufficient to provide notice of the TCHRA claims. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, granted Jubilee's plea to the jurisdiction, and dismissed McKinnon's claims with prejudice.

Employment discriminationRetaliationGovernmental immunityTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTCHRAAdministrative remediesPlea to the jurisdictionSubject matter jurisdictionCharter schoolPregnancy discrimination
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Helmes v. South Colonie Central School District

Plaintiff Brooke Helmes filed a pregnancy-based employment discrimination lawsuit against the South Colonie Central School District and several individuals under Title VII and NYSHRL, alleging she was denied tenure due to her pregnancy and maternity leave. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff was not qualified, while plaintiff cross-moved to amend her complaint. The court found that plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination, and despite defendants articulating legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination, plaintiff raised sufficient questions of fact regarding pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing only the Board of Education, and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the complaint.

Pregnancy DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIINYSHRLSummary JudgmentTeacher TenureProbationary EmploymentMaternity LeavePretextPrima Facie Case
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 2,412 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