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

Fabijanic v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

Petitioner Nicholas Fabijanic, representing the Engineers Union, sought to compel Sperry Gyroscope Division and Sperry Systems Management Division to arbitrate a grievance concerning a collective bargaining agreement. The dispute arose after Systems' employees, previously working at the Mississippi Test Facility (MTF) on the National Data Buoy Project, were offered employment with Sperry Space Support, another division, which would result in loss of union coverage. The Union contended the agreement should still apply. The court denied the motion, ruling that the employees had voluntarily accepted employment with an autonomous entity not party to the agreement, thus making the grievance non-arbitrable under the existing contract.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceUnion RepresentationEmployee TransferSperry Rand CorporationNational Labor Relations BoardFederal CourtLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07367 [211 AD3d 1582]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2022

Bregaudit v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Ctr.

Plaintiff Edison Bregaudit sought damages after slipping on ice at a facility owned by Loretto Health and Rehabilitation Center, which contracted Pro Scapes, Inc. for snow removal. Pro Scapes initially moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, a motion initially granted by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed parts of the lower court's decision. The Appellate Division found a question of fact existed regarding whether Pro Scapes negligently created or exacerbated the dangerous icy condition by using inadequate deicer, which could lead to refreezing. Consequently, the court denied parts of Pro Scapes' motion for summary judgment and reinstated the amended complaint and cross-claim for common-law indemnification against Pro Scapes.

Snow and IceSlip and FallPremises LiabilitySnow Removal ContractSummary JudgmentDuty of CareTort LiabilityExacerbated ConditionNegligenceRefreezing
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suffolk County Community College v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Suffolk County Community College to review a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Division had previously found the college guilty of unlawful racially discriminatory practices and retaliation against an employee, awarding $50,000 in compensatory damages. The Division of Human Rights cross-petitioned to enforce this determination. Following a reversal and remittal by the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division reviewed the matter. The court denied the branch of the cross-petition seeking to enforce the $50,000 compensatory damages award, finding it excessive due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration, severity, or consequences of the complainant's mental anguish related to racial discrimination. The determination was otherwise confirmed, and the case was remitted to the New York State Division of Human Rights for a new award of compensatory damages not exceeding $5,000.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationCompensatory DamagesExcessive DamagesMental AnguishAdministrative Law ReviewHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewRemittalSufficiency of Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Father Belle Community Center v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This proceeding addresses whether a corporate employer can be held directly liable for sexual harassment perpetrated by its highest managerial employee, even without proof of vicarious liability. The New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) filed a petition seeking enforcement of a determination that the Father Belle Community Center was liable for sexual harassment by its Executive Director, Vito Caruso, against three complainants: Deborah King, Elizabeth Hurd, and Deborah Horvatits. The court affirmed the finding that the Center was directly liable for Caruso's quid pro quo and hostile work environment harassment, and for its Board of Directors' condonation and retaliatory discharge of complainants. The court also upheld the $60,000 awards to each complainant for mental anguish and humiliation.

Sexual HarassmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentEmployer LiabilityDirect LiabilityRetaliatory DischargeHuman Rights LawDiscriminationMental Anguish DamagesCorporate Governance
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Edison Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an appeal by Con Edison against a decision by the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Division found Con Edison discriminated against Pamela Easton, a Black female employee, based on sex and race by denying her promotions to management positions. Easton, despite seniority and experience, was bypassed for promotions in favor of less experienced white male employees whom she had often trained. The Division ordered Con Edison to offer Easton a supervisory position with back pay, benefits, and $10,000 for humiliation and mental anguish. The dissenting judge believes there was substantial evidence to support the Division's determination and would have confirmed its order, thereby dismissing Con Edison's petition.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationPromotional DenialSubstantial Evidence ReviewAdministrative Agency DecisionHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionSeniority
References
4
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

People v. Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377

The Attorney-General initiated an action seeking a permanent injunction against the Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377, its president Murray Brodsky, and business agent Jack Flaum. The complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in an illegal combination, violating New York's Donnelly Anti-Trust Law (General Business Law § 340), by coercing manufacturers and retailers in the smoked fish industry to deal exclusively with Distributors Division members. Although the defendants claimed exemption as a bona fide labor union, the court found that the Distributors Division was merely a jobbers association disguised as a union to create a monopoly and restrain trade. The organization's activities involved threats, intimidation, and misleading picketing to compel adherence to its demands, ultimately harming competition and forcing retailers to pay higher prices. Consequently, the court ruled that the injunction should be granted, concluding that the Distributors Division was not a legitimate labor union and its practices were illegal.

anti-trustmonopolylabor unioninjunctiontrade restraintGeneral Business LawDonnelly Actjobbers associationcoercionpicketing
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02513 [182 AD3d 954]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Matter of Colon (Pd 10276, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Nicanor Colon filed for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing operation of his cleaning business, leading the Department of Labor to assess PD 10276, Inc., doing business as Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems of the Hudson Valley, for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge initially ruled Colon an independent contractor, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed this decision, finding Colon and similarly situated individuals to be employees. PD 10276, Inc. appealed the Board's decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that there was substantial evidence of an employment relationship based on the indicia of control exercised by Jan-Pro Cleaning over its unit franchisees, similar to findings in prior cases like Matter of Baez. The court highlighted requirements like certification, provision of supplies, periodic inspections, and noncompetition clauses as supporting the Board's conclusion.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent Contractor StatusEmployment RelationshipFranchise AgreementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceJan-Pro Cleaning SystemsDepartment of LaborUnit FranchiseesLabor Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1994

Hone v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Petitioner, a sportswriter for The Daily Star, was discharged following multiple complaints of harassment against female co-workers and other women, despite receiving prior warnings and counseling. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging his termination was based solely on an earlier arrest. The Division investigated the claim and found no probable cause to support an unlawful discriminatory practice. Petitioner then sought to annul this determination in Supreme Court, which dismissed his application. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the Division's determination was rational, not arbitrary or capricious, and its investigative process was fair.

Employment DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentWrongful TerminationHuman Rights LawAdministrative ReviewProbable CauseJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionExecutive Law § 298CPL § 170.55
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 5,517 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