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. 06-CV2637
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2012

Spencer v. International Shoppes, Inc.

Plaintiff Arleigh Spencer initiated an action against International Shoppes, Inc. and Michael Halpern, alleging race and age-based discrimination and retaliation. While many discrimination claims were dismissed, claims of retaliatory commencement of litigation under Title VII, NYHRL, and § 1981 remained. Defendants moved for a second summary judgment, contending that their partially successful state court defamation lawsuit against Spencer precluded a finding of retaliatory intent. The Court denied the motion, ruling that the 'well-founded lawsuit' standard from NLRA cases was not applicable to employment discrimination retaliation claims and that, even if it were, Defendants' success on only one of eight claims did not negate the possibility of retaliatory motive, particularly given the timing and high damages sought in the initial state court action.

Retaliation ClaimEmployment DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIINew York Human Rights Law (NYHRL)Section 1981State Court LawsuitFrivolous LitigationPretextCausal Connection
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Webb v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection

Claimant, a provisional employee, suffered work-related injuries in July 1996, establishing a workers' compensation claim. His employer terminated him on March 3, 1997, allegedly due to a poor employment record after his supervisor deemed his medical documentation unacceptable and marked him absent without leave. Claimant filed a discrimination complaint under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge for his compensation claim. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a causal nexus between the rejected documents and discharge, the Workers’ Compensation Board, upon full review and reconsideration, denied the claim, concluding that claimant failed to prove retaliatory intent. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the lack of retaliatory motive.

Workers' Compensation Law § 120Retaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ComplaintBurden of ProofCausal NexusMedical DocumentationProvisional EmployeeUnsatisfactory Performance ReviewAbsent Without LeaveAppellate Division
References
5
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

Contes v. Porr

This case involves firemen and their union, Local 589, as plaintiffs, who alleged violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They claimed that the City Manager (Harold Porr) and Corporation Counsel (Marilyn Berson) of Newburgh initiated retaliatory disciplinary charges against them for supporting Democratic candidates. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety. It found the City Manager protected by absolute immunity, thus precluding municipal liability for the City of Newburgh. The Corporation Counsel was granted qualified immunity, with the court finding no evidence of retaliatory motive. Furthermore, the court upheld the constitutionality of Newburgh's Code of Ethics.

First Amendment RetaliationFourteenth AmendmentSummary JudgmentAbsolute ImmunityQualified ImmunityCivil Service LawMunicipal LiabilityHatch ActCode of EthicsPolitical Speech
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of De La Concha v. Fordham University

Claimant, a locksmith at Fordham University, was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim following an alleged physical altercation with the employer's director of human resources. The employer cited reasons including filing a false report for benefits, while the claimant alleged unlawful termination for filing the claim. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found the employer's motivation was retaliatory, violating Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. On appeal, the employer challenged the Board's adherence to precedent and the substantial evidence for its decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the employer's cited precedents distinguishable and substantial evidence supported the finding of retaliatory discharge.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeWrongful TerminationEmployer RetaliationLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawBoard PrecedentWorkplace InjuryMedical Evidence
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05344 [220 AD3d 554]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2023

Walker v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order denying defendants' motion to dismiss claims of discrimination, retaliation, and gender-motivated violence. The court found that a prior federal court dismissal of discrimination claims did not preclude state HRL claims due to New York's lenient notice pleading standards. Plaintiff Kellie Walker sufficiently pleaded claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and aiding and abetting. Specifically, she alleged discriminatory scrutiny, exclusion from meetings, verbal abuse, and physical assault by a male colleague, as well as retaliatory conduct after filing complaints. The court also upheld aiding and abetting claims against Sharon Gallo-Kotcher and claims under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentHuman Rights LawGender-Motivated ViolenceCollateral EstoppelPleading StandardsEmployment DiscriminationAppellate AffirmationMotion to Dismiss
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gaines v. New York City Transit Authority

Shawn Gaines, a pro se plaintiff and former train operator for the New York City Transit Authority (TA), filed two lawsuits. One alleged disability discrimination and retaliation by the TA under the ADA, stemming from a policy change that rendered him medically unqualified due to a hearing impairment and his subsequent termination for refusing reclassification. The second lawsuit accused the Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 (Local 100) of retaliation for filing discrimination charges against the TA, citing multiple adjournments of his grievance arbitration. The District Court granted summary judgment for both defendants, ruling that the TA's policy was a legitimate safety measure, not discriminatory or retaliatory, and that Local 100's actions did not constitute adverse union action or evidence of retaliatory motive.

ADAEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationDisabilityHearing ImpairmentSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic SafetyTrain OperatorNew York City Transit Authority
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

Rodriguez v. McClenning

Israel Rodriguez, an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility, sued corrections officer Daniel McClenning under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Rodriguez claimed McClenning sexually assaulted him during a pat-frisk and retaliated against him for filing a grievance. McClenning moved for summary judgment, arguing the sexual assault claim lacked constitutional merit or was protected by qualified immunity, and that the retaliation claim lacked evidence of improper motive. The court denied McClenning's motion, concluding that sexual assault of an inmate by a prison officer violates contemporary Eighth Amendment standards and that qualified immunity does not apply to such conduct. Additionally, the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive regarding the misbehavior report to deny summary judgment on the retaliation claim.

Prisoner RightsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentSexual AssaultQualified ImmunityFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentRetaliationCorrectional FacilitySummary Judgment
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2010

Bartels v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LLOYD

Plaintiff Jeffrey Bartels sued the Village of Lloyd Harbor and several officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment free speech retaliation and conspiracy. Plaintiff claimed defendants retaliated against him for voicing complaints at public meetings, writing letters, and calling officials. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff could not prove improper motivation or a chilling effect on his speech. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding retaliatory motives and the chilling effect of defendants' actions, specifically concerning a harassment charge, and therefore denied summary judgment on the First Amendment claim. However, the court granted summary judgment for defendants on the conspiracy claim, applying the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine because all individual defendants were employees of the Village acting within their official duties.

First AmendmentFree SpeechRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentConspiracy ClaimQualified ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityPolice MisconductHarassment ChargePublic Officials
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 396 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