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

Spainhouer v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.

Plaintiff was discharged by her employer, Western Electric, after claiming worker's compensation benefits and failing to report for duty. She initiated grievance procedures through her union, Communications Workers of America, as per their contract. Although the local union recommended binding arbitration, the International Union declined to pursue this final step, leading to the waiver of arbitration rights. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Western Electric, alleging the discharge was due to her worker's compensation claim. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that federal law preempted state law in this context and that the union's decision not to pursue arbitration did not grant the plaintiff private rights to litigate a tort claim against her employer.

Wrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentWorker's CompensationLabor Union GrievanceCollective Bargaining AgreementExhaustion of RemediesFederal PreemptionBinding ArbitrationUnion RepresentationTexas Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
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
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

Austin v. Shelby County Government

Victor Austin appealed the trial court's summary judgment which dismissed his wrongful discharge claim against Shelby County Government. Austin's claim was based on alleged violations of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, stemming from his dismissal as a deputy clerk in January 1994. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. It concluded that Austin failed to provide sufficient evidence that his hypertension constituted a "serious health condition" entitling him to FMLA leave, as his physician's report indicated he was able to perform his job functions. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that his discharge was in retaliation for protected activity under THRA or Title VII, as his prior litigation was civil service related and too remote in time to establish a causal link.

Wrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Title VII Civil Rights ActRetaliatory DischargeSerious Health ConditionHypertensionEmployment LawCausal Connection
References
17
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
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cusumano v. Schlessinger

The plaintiff, an operator employed by Rodin, was discharged on October 2, 1914, after agents of the International Garment Association informed Rodin that the plaintiff was not a union member, violating an agreement between Rodin's association and the defendant. The plaintiff, claiming wrongful discharge and subsequent inability to find work, was awarded $500 in the lower court. However, the defendant appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Rodin had the right to discharge an employee hired for an indefinite term with or without cause. The court also determined that the defendant's truthful statements did not constitute an actionable offense, as the responsibility for discharge rested solely with the employer. Furthermore, no evidence suggested the defendant prevented the plaintiff from seeking other employment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Wrongful dischargeLabor disputeUnion membershipEmployer-employee relationsTrade associationsContractual agreementsAppellate reviewDismissal with costsUnemploymentRight to discharge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 7,890 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