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
May 11, 2004

Claim of Frank v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found a causal relationship between a decedent's death and his employment. The employer engaged in prolonged retaliatory and harassing conduct, including unjustifiably withholding differential pay, threatening to revoke medical benefits, refusing to reimburse pharmacy expenses, denying vacation leave, and filing a false claim of absence without leave. This behavior, alongside repeated failures to substantiate claims regarding benefit overpayments, led to prolonged hearings. Following one such hearing, the decedent suffered a fatal myocardial infarction. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board subsequently found a causal connection between the employer's conduct and the decedent's death. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the death resulted from the employer's "prolonged pattern of intimidation, deceit, and unlawful coercion, the wrongful withholding of benefits to which decedent was entitled, and generally disgraceful conduct towards the decedent." The employer's claims regarding witness preclusion were dismissed as not properly before the court.

Workers' CompensationCausationEmployer RetaliationStress-Related DeathMyocardial InfarctionBenefits WithholdingAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceProcedural IssuesUnjustified Conduct
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Donohue v. Scandinavian Airlines of North America, Inc.

The claimant sustained a disabling wrist fracture in April 1982 and was cleared by her physician and the employer's carrier's physician to return to work by August 1, 1982. However, she informed her employer she would not return, citing continued difficulties, and subsequently missed a scheduled examination by the company physician, claiming a broken foot. Her employment was terminated on August 18, 1982. The claimant alleged retaliatory discharge in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found her testimony not credible and concluded that the employer had a valid, non-retaliatory reason for termination due to her uncooperative behavior. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, determining it was supported by substantial evidence and that the employer was justified in the discharge.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer JustificationEmployee UncooperativenessMedical Examination FindingsDisability ClaimWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Moog, Inc.

Claimant was terminated from employment due to excessive absenteeism. He subsequently filed a complaint alleging discriminatory discharge in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 120 and 241, asserting he was fired for attempting to file a disability benefits claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the termination was for a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason, which was affirmed on appeal. The court emphasized that the burden of proving retaliation rests with the claimant, requiring a causal nexus between protected activity and detrimental employer conduct, which was not established in this case, and that a termination due to lengthy absence, absent retaliatory intent, does not constitute discrimination.

DiscriminationRetaliationExcessive AbsenteeismDisability Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation LawBurden of ProofCausal NexusJob TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. Kogan

Plaintiffs, two white salespersons (Fernandez and Leggette), sued their former employers, George and Barbara Kogan and Kogan and Company, alleging retaliatory discharge under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state-law breach of contract claims. They claimed they were fired for supporting minority employees who faced discriminatory treatment by the Kogans. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 1981 claims, citing the Supreme Court's Patterson v. McLean Credit Union decision, which limited Section 1981's scope to contract formation and enforcement, not post-formation conduct like retaliatory discharge. Consequently, with the federal claims dismissed, the court declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Retaliatory DischargeCivil Rights Act of 1866Contract FormationEmployment LawFederal JurisdictionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(b)(1)Supreme Court RulingsPost-Contract Conduct
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2000

Clarke v. One Source Facility Services, Inc.

This case concerns Sylvester Clarke's claims of employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII against One Source Facility Services, Inc. Clarke, an African-American male, alleged discrimination stemming from a refusal of non-union work, which he claimed led to his removal from a position and a series of adverse employment actions. He pursued these grievances through union complaints and two administrative complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights in 1996 and 1998. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the discrimination claim, finding a lack of evidence for racial animus. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a potential pattern of retaliatory conduct by the employer following Clarke's protected activities.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeTitle VIISummary JudgmentMcDonnell-Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextRacial DiscriminationUnion GrievanceAdministrative Complaint
References
21
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

Walker v. AMR Services Corp.

Plaintiff Sylvia Walker sued Defendant AMR Services Corporation (AMRS) for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Walker alleged that her supervisor, Kenneth St. Louis, subjected her to unwanted sexual advances and retaliatory actions, including denying time off and altering her work conditions. After Walker complained internally, she was terminated nine days later following alleged fabricated insubordination incidents. AMRS moved for summary judgment, arguing the conduct was not severe or unwelcome, that they took prompt remedial action, and that there was no causal link for the retaliation claim. The court denied AMRS's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding hostile work environment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and retaliatory discharge. The court also upheld plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationSupervisor MisconductWrongful TerminationCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Little v. Gaines Electrical Contracting, Inc.

Claimant, an electrician apprentice, suffered a ventral hernia at work and informed his employer. The employer's president, David Gaines, allegedly advised him to take a layoff and use health insurance instead of filing a workers' compensation claim to avoid hurting the company's insurance. After surgery and medical clearance, the claimant attempted to return to work but was told no work was available. Upon discovering the employer used an independent contractor for work he could have done, the claimant filed for workers' compensation and a discrimination complaint under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, leading to his formal termination. The Workers' Compensation Board found the employer guilty of retaliatory discrimination, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal, citing substantial evidence of a causal nexus between the claimant's efforts to obtain benefits and the employer's retaliatory conduct. The court found no basis to disturb the Board's findings or its denial of the employer's request to reopen the hearing.

Workers' Compensation DiscriminationRetaliationWrongful TerminationWorkplace Injury ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 120Board Decision ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCausal NexusCredibility AssessmentDenial of Motion to Reopen
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, current and former correction officers, sued the City of New York alleging race and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on employment discrimination claims for all plaintiffs under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, finding that assignment to a rotating 'wheel' or undesirable permanent posts did not constitute an adverse employment action in the discrimination context. Summary judgment was also granted against O'Brien's retaliation claims, as her protected activity postdated the alleged retaliatory actions, and against Quick's standalone sexual harassment claim, which was deemed not severe enough to alter employment conditions. However, the court denied summary judgment on retaliation claims for Adams, Castleberry, Monche, and Quick, finding issues of fact regarding whether reassignments were retaliatory. Summary judgment was also denied for hostile work environment claims (general and Monche's individual sexual harassment claim) due to triable issues of fact regarding pervasive derogatory comments, discriminatory bathroom policies, and Supervisor Olivo's conduct towards Monche. Finally, summary judgment was denied on the Monell claim under § 1983, as there were triable issues regarding the EEO's corroboration policy leading to deliberate indifference to constitutional violations.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionMunicipal LiabilitySection 1983Monell Claim
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hollis v. Marriott Hotel

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from June 2, 1993, which found that her discharge was not retaliatory after she filed a compensation claim. The claimant suffered a compensable injury and did not report to work while recovering. The employer was unable to contact the claimant due to her failure to update her address. After sending correspondence regarding her return to work with no response, her employment was terminated. At the time of termination, she was unable to perform her usual duties. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that there was no discrimination under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, affirming the decision.

retaliationdiscriminationworkers' compensationemployment terminationaddress notificationcompensable injury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,519 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