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

Drouillard v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co.

The Plaintiff brought claims of hostile work environment based on race and gender, as well as retaliation, against the Defendant employer. The court found sufficient evidence to deny summary judgment for the race-based hostile work environment claim, citing repeated use of racial epithets by a coworker, Elkilany. However, the court granted summary judgment for the gender-based hostile work environment claims, finding the allegations of sexual proposition and general use of 'bitch' insufficiently severe. All retaliation claims were also dismissed, as the Plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between her protected activities and the alleged adverse employment actions. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment against the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, finding no evidence of malice or reckless indifference on the employer's part.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial HarassmentGender DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawWorkplace DiscriminationRacial SlursSexual Harassment AllegationsEmployer Liability
References
89
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broad Elm Auto Centers, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

The determination that petitioner engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in the conditions of complainant’s employment is supported by substantial evidence. The hearing testimony established that a store manager frequently made derogatory racial comments about the complainant, including referring to him as his 'little nigger slave,' in the presence of customers and co-workers. A compensatory award of $5,000 for mental anguish was found to be supported by the evidence and not excessive. The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Administrative Law Judge and Commissioner lacked authority to determine discriminatory practice based on racial slurs, even though the original complaint focused on unlawful termination due to racial discrimination. The Human Rights Law's predominant purpose is to eliminate discrimination in basic opportunities, and it considers racial insults and harassment in employment as unlawful discriminatory practice.

Racial discriminationUnlawful discriminatory practiceEmployment conditionsRacial slursHarassmentMental anguish awardHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate decisionSubstantial evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Michael Mack sued The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Dr. Scott Bergman for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law section 296. Mack, an African-American employee, alleged his supervisor, Iannacone, and Dr. Bergman subjected him to racial jokes, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. Mack was terminated after failing a drug test and refusing to provide a second urine sample, which he claimed was racially motivated. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims, finding that Mack failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom for the Port Authority's liability and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of wrongful termination or a racially hostile work environment. Additionally, state law claims were dismissed as New York anti-discrimination laws do not apply to the bi-state Port Authority.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moodie v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Vincent Moodie, a Black male, sued the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for racial discrimination under Title VII after his termination due to an altercation with a white co-worker. Moodie claimed his dismissal was racially motivated and that the bank's stated reason—that he was the aggressor in a workplace fight—was a pretext. The incident involved Moodie confronting his co-worker, Tony Riolo, over a derogatory remark, which escalated into a physical engagement. The court, presided over by Judge Lasker, found that Moodie failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the bank's internal investigation or dismissal decision was tainted by racial prejudice. The complaint was therefore dismissed, as the bank provided credible non-discriminatory explanations for its actions and demonstrated a consistent policy regarding workplace violence.

Race DiscriminationTitle VIIWorkplace ViolenceWrongful TerminationEmployer PolicyPretextDisparate TreatmentInternal InvestigationFederal Reserve BankAggressor
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. CNY Centro, Inc.

Plaintiff, a black man, sued his employer, Centro, for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, section 1981, and New York Human Rights Law, along with claims for hostile work environment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleged he was demoted from a supervisory position due to race and experienced ongoing racial harassment. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court, presided over by District Judge Mordue, granted summary judgment dismissing the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim as time-barred. However, the motion for summary judgment was denied for the racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims, as the court found sufficient questions of fact existed to proceed to trial under the McDonnell Douglas framework.

Employment DiscriminationRacial HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIISection 1981New York Human Rights LawMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie Case
References
25
Case No. 86 CV 0698
Regular Panel Decision

Cassells v. University Hospital at Stony Brook

Plaintiff Casserene Cassells, a registered nurse, sued her former employer, University Hospital at Stony Brook, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York Human Rights Law. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claim, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding racial animus and retaliatory conduct by the plaintiff's supervisors, including racial slurs and xenophobic remarks. However, the court dismissed the Human Rights Law claim, holding that New York State had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to be sued in federal court for such state-law claims. The Title VII claim will proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentEleventh AmendmentFederal JurisdictionSupervisor HarassmentWrongful Termination
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Hertz Corp.

Plaintiff Derrick Anderson, an African-American man, sued Hertz Corporation for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and New York State Executive Law § 296, alleging wrongful termination based on race. Anderson claimed he was subjected to derogatory racial remarks by subordinates, and that senior management failed to take disciplinary action. He also argued that his termination, following a physical altercation, was discriminatory, especially given he was the only African-American manager at that facility. The court found that Anderson failed to establish a prima facie case, citing that the racial remarks were not from decision-makers, Anderson himself could have disciplined subordinates but chose not to, and both participants in the fight were terminated. Additionally, the 'same actor' inference applied, as the manager who hired Anderson also fired him within a year. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Racial DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawWorkplace AltercationHostile Work EnvironmentPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting AnalysisSame Actor InferenceManagerial Responsibility
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forsythe v. New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services

Plaintiff Earl Forsythe, a pro se litigant, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII. Forsythe, a security guard employed by Tristar Patrol Services, claimed that DCAS and its employees discriminated against him based on his race by causing his transfer from desirable posts at DCAS-managed facilities to less favorable ones, disrupting his childcare schedule. DCAS moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not Forsythe's direct employer and that Forsythe failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or an inference of discriminatory motive. The court determined that a factual issue existed regarding DCAS's "joint employer" liability if a transfer was racially motivated. However, the court found no admissible evidence to suggest that Forsythe's transfers were racially motivated, thus failing the "inference of discrimination" element of his prima facie case. Consequently, DCAS's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Forsythe's Title VII claim was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentJoint Employer DoctrineAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBurden-ShiftingPretext
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2016

Oliphant v. Caldwell

Plaintiff William Oliphant, an African American man, brought a Section 1983 action against Anne Caldwell and David Jolly, alleging he was denied equal protection through a failure to promote him at the Orange County Department of Social Services in 2011 and 2012. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their promotion decisions. The court denied the motion, finding that a reasonable jury could infer racial discrimination as a motivating factor due to evidence such as racial disparities in supervisory positions, Oliphant's superior qualifications, and potential pretext in the defendants' explanations.

Employment DiscriminationSection 1983Equal ProtectionSummary JudgmentRacial DiscriminationPromotion DenialCivil Service LawDisparate TreatmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkFederal Court
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 242 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