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. 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

Brinson v. New York City Transit Authority

Plaintiff Jealetta Brinson, an African-American woman, sued her former employer, the New York City Transit Authority, for racial discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law, following her termination from employment as a bus operator. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or show that her termination, which followed a binding arbitration award, was pretextual. The court, giving significant weight to the Tripartite Arbitration Board's decision, found that Brinson's extensive disciplinary record, including multiple warnings and suspensions, served as a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for her dismissal. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find the termination to be merely pretextual, thus granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981New York Human Rights LawWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentArbitration AwardPretext EvidenceDisciplinary Record
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Godineaux v. Laguardia Airport Marriott Hotel

Plaintiff Edwin Godineaux, a former employee of the LaGuardia Marriott Hotel, sued the hotel and Marriott Int’l, Inc. for creating a hostile work environment due to discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, marital status, and race, as well as retaliation for complaining about discrimination. He alleged sexual harassment by a co-worker and claimed his subsequent disciplinary actions and termination were pretextual and retaliatory. The court, applying Title VII standards to the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, found that the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile work environment, and that the employer took appropriate remedial action. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between his protected activity and termination, and that the defendants provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his disciplinary actions and termination, which the plaintiff failed to prove were pretextual. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was closed.

Hostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationNYSHRL ClaimsNYCHRL ClaimsTitle VII StandardsObjective Hostile EnvironmentSubjective Hostile Environment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lew v. Radiation Dynamics, Inc.

Samuel Lew sued his former employer, Radiation Dynamics, Inc. (RDI), alleging national origin discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII. Lew, a naturalized American citizen of French origin, claimed he was discriminated against due to his French accent and subsequently terminated after complaining about a discriminatory remark by his supervisor. RDI moved for summary judgment, asserting Lew failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the discrimination claim and that his termination stemmed from poor performance. The Court granted summary judgment for RDI on the national origin discrimination claim, finding Lew's allegations primarily focused on retaliation rather than direct discrimination. However, the Court denied RDI's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim and its motion to limit damages, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the pretextual nature of Lew's termination, including disputed examination scores and performance evaluations. The case will proceed to trial on the retaliation claim.

Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964National Origin DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingEEOC ExhaustionTemporal Proximity
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2011

Nolley v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp.

Plaintiff James Nolley sued Swiss Re America Holding Corporation for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Nolley alleged discrimination regarding promotion, exclusion from meetings, assignment of lesser work, issuance of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), and termination of employment. The court dismissed the Title VII claims as untimely. For the remaining discrimination claims, the court found Swiss Re provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, citing concerns over Nolley's aggressive demeanor and poor performance. Nolley failed to demonstrate these reasons were pretextual or that discrimination was a motivating factor. The court also granted summary judgment to Swiss Re on Nolley's retaliation claim, finding no direct evidence of retaliatory motive and that intervening events defeated the inference of causation.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawPerformance Improvement PlanAdverse Employment ActionPretext
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Board of Higher Education & Professional Staff Congress/CUNY

This case addresses a petition to stay arbitration initiated by a petitioner against a respondent, representing Sandra Davis and Luis Rodriquez-Abad. The grievants, non-reappointed instructional staff at CUNY (Hunter College), sought arbitration alleging discrimination. The petitioner refused to process these grievances, citing a collective bargaining agreement clause (Section 20.7) that precludes arbitration for discrimination claims if a party has filed a claim in court or with a governmental agency. Sandra Davis had filed a Title VII lawsuit, and Luis Rodriquez-Abad had filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. The court, referencing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., ruled that while statutory rights cannot be prospectively waived, the contractual right to arbitration can be waived if a superior forum is chosen. Consequently, the court granted the petition to stay arbitration of the discrimination claim, allowing other claims to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementDiscriminationNonreappointmentTenureGrievance ProcedureTitle VIICivil Rights ActExecutive Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parry v. Tompkins County

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vinokur v. Sovereign Bank

Plaintiff Faina Vinokur sued Sovereign Bank for employment discrimination based on disability (rheumatoid arthritis), age (born 1954), and national origin (Russian), under the New York State Executive Law and New York City Human Rights Law. She also alleged failure to reasonably accommodate her disability and retaliatory termination. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court found that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for age and national origin discrimination, or that the bank's reason for termination (violation of Bank Secrecy Act policies regarding suspicious transactions) was a pretext for discrimination. Regarding disability discrimination, the court concluded that the plaintiff was reasonably accommodated and that her termination was not linked to her disability. The court also dismissed the retaliation claim, finding that while there was temporal proximity between her accommodation request and termination, the bank had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her discharge that the plaintiff failed to show was pretextual. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationAge DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationReasonable AccommodationBank Secrecy Act ViolationsFinancial TransactionsPrima Facie Case
References
59
Case No. 09-CV-8244 (RA)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

Goonewardena v. New York Workers Compensation Board

Bernard Goonewardena, a 78-year-old native of Sri Lanka, filed a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against his former employer, the New York Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB), and his supervisor, Winston Farnum, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Goonewardena, who identified as South Asian, claimed he was terminated based on his race, national origin, and age, and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The court found that Goonewardena established a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation, but the defendants provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his termination, citing deficiencies in his performance, including errors in reports, poor coworker relationships, failure to follow instructions, inadequate public communication, and insufficient computer skills. The court did not credit Goonewardena's claims of discriminatory remarks or superior qualifications compared to his replacements. Ultimately, the court concluded that Goonewardena failed to prove that the defendants' reasons were pretextual or that his termination was motivated by discrimination or retaliation, thus entering judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1983NYSHRLNYCHRLEmployment LawTerminationPerformance IssuesNational Origin Discrimination
References
63
Showing 1-10 of 1,576 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