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

Volpe v. New York City Department of Education

Cheryl Volpe, a special education teacher, sued the New York City Department of Education and Principal Olivia Francis-Webber, alleging retaliation, equal protection violations, and unlawful searches stemming from her advocacy for special needs students. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court partially granted and partially denied. The court dismissed Volpe's Fourth Amendment and equal protection claims, finding no protected class or unreasonable search. However, the court allowed her Rehabilitation Act and ADA retaliation claim to proceed, specifically regarding an incident on December 18, 2013, where she was confined after attempting to speak with a student's parent.

Special Education TeacherWorkplace RetaliationDisability DiscriminationADA Title IIRehabilitation ActPublic School SystemMotion to DismissHostile Work EnvironmentFourth Amendment ViolationEqual Protection Claim
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2014

B.K. v. New York City Department of Education

G.K., a child diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, faced educational challenges for the 2011-2012 school year. His parents, B.K. and Y.K., initiated legal action against the New York City Department of Education, alleging that the Department failed to provide G.K. with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). The parents sought tuition reimbursement for G.K.'s private special education program and direct funding for home-based therapy, appealing an administrative decision that had previously denied their claims. The Department subsequently filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The District Court, after conducting an independent review of the administrative record and giving due weight to the state administrative proceedings, denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the Department's cross-motion, concluding that the May 2011 Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed by the Department was procedurally and substantively adequate.

Individualized Education ProgramFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividuals with Disabilities Education ActAutism Spectrum DisorderSpecial EducationTuition ReimbursementDue Process HearingBehavioral Intervention PlanFunctional Behavioral AssessmentParental Participation
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1982

In re the Arbitration between Board of Education of Connetquot Central School District & Connetquot Teachers Ass'n

This dissenting opinion argues for affirming a Special Term's order directing a board of education to arbitrate a grievance filed by a teachers union. The union's claim involves continued use of office space in school district buildings, citing a collective bargaining agreement and past practice. The dissent contends that the arbitration clause is broad and encompasses the dispute, rejecting the employer's argument that law or public policy (specifically Education Law § 414 or Civil Service Law § 209-a) prohibits arbitration of this grievance. Justice O'Connor asserts that the union's use of office space for its statutory duties as a collective bargaining agent serves a "school purpose," similar to administrative and support services, and thus is not excluded by Education Law § 414. The dissent concludes that the order compelling arbitration should be affirmed.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceTeachers UnionBoard of EducationOffice SpaceSchool PropertyEducation LawCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations Board
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.O. ex rel. O. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs F.O. and E.O., on behalf of their minor child Brendan O., sued the New York City Department of Education under the IDEA and New York State Education Law. They sought to reverse a State Review Officer (SRO) decision that had overturned an Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) decision, which ordered the DOE to reimburse tuition for Brendan's private school placement at the Rebecca School for the 2010-2011 school year. Brendan, diagnosed with Myasthenia Gravis and Autism, required special education services, and the dispute centered on the adequacy of the DOE's proposed IEP (a 12:1:4 classroom) versus the Rebecca School's program. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment regarding tuition reimbursement, finding the SRO's decision inadequately reasoned and deferring to the IHO's conclusion that the DOE's IEP was inappropriate and the Rebecca School was an appropriate unilateral placement. The court ordered the DOE to reimburse $92,100 for Brendan's tuition but denied the plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief concerning a 1:1 health paraprofessional on procedural grounds.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActSpecial EducationFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Educational ProgramTuition ReimbursementAutism Spectrum DisorderMyasthenia GravisImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review OfficerUnilateral Private Placement
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deichman v. Board of Education

Petitioners, tenured school social workers, were terminated by respondent school district in July 1977, subject to preferred eligibility under Education Law § 2585(4). In September 1977, respondent Rivera, a non-tenured, less senior individual, was hired as a temporary school social worker because she spoke Spanish and qualified under a reclassification plan. Respondents argued the reclassification created a special tenure area, negating petitioners' preferred eligibility. The court ruled that local school boards cannot create special tenure areas without authorization from the Commissioner of Education or the Legislature, and the Buffalo School District was not authorized. The power to license teachers does not equate to the authority to establish special tenure areas. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to preferred eligibility and appointment based on seniority, with removal only permissible under Education Law § 3020-a if unqualified.

Tenure AreaSchool Social WorkersPreferred EligibilitySeniority RightsTeacher LicensingReclassification PlanBuffalo School DistrictAppellate ReviewEmployment TerminationStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1982

Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of Education

Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. (Parochial) contracted with the Board of Education of the City of New York (Board) to transport students. During a wildcat strike, Parochial ceased services, citing safety concerns due to violence and picketing. The Board, however, maintained that Parochial could have provided service with police protection and found alternative transportation. Parochial sought payment under a "Cessation of Service" clause, which the Board denied, also raising an affirmative defense regarding non-compliance with Education Law § 3813. The Special Term initially dismissed the defense and denied summary judgment, but the appellate court modified this, finding that Parochial did not substantially comply with its contractual obligations to "attempt" service, despite police protection offers. Ultimately, the court granted the Board's motion, dismissing both Parochial's and co-plaintiff Local 100's complaints.

Contract DisputeTransportation ServicesWildcat StrikeBreach of ContractEducation LawNotice of ClaimSubstantial ComplianceSummary JudgmentImpossibility of PerformancePicket Line
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01729
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2019

Matter of James v. Fariña

This case involves an appeal concerning a summary inquiry application initiated by the Public Advocate of New York City, Letitia James, against Carmen Fariña, Chancellor of the NYC Department of Education (DOE). The inquiry focused on the Special Education Student Information System (SESIS), a software designed to manage special education records and facilitate Medicaid reimbursement. Petitioner alleged that SESIS was an "abject failure" due to administrative inefficiencies, leading to lost Medicaid reimbursements and a failure to provide mandated services to children with disabilities. The Supreme Court initially granted the summary inquiry. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, asserting that the alleged administrative mismanagement did not constitute a "violation or neglect of duty" under NY City Charter § 1109, which they interpreted to require allegations of "official misconduct" or corruption, rather than mere inefficiency. The court further noted that the issue had already received significant public attention, and remediation efforts by the DOE were underway. A dissenting opinion argued for a broader interpretation of "neglect of duty" and maintained that a summary inquiry was justified given the severe impact on special education students and public funds.

Special EducationEducation PolicyAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewPublic AdvocateDepartment of EducationMedicaid ReimbursementSoftware Systems (SESIS)Official MisconductNeglect of Duty
References
44
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00945 [213 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of Clarke v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of petitions challenging the New York City Department of Education's (DOE) COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Petitioners, employees placed on leave without pay for non-compliance, had sought to annul the DOE's determinations and vacate an arbitration award. The court found that the vaccine mandate was a valid qualification of employment, unrelated to job performance or misconduct, and therefore did not constitute disciplinary action. Furthermore, it ruled that the arbitrator's authority stemmed from the Civil Service Law, not the collective bargaining agreement or Education Law, and petitioners lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award. The court also determined that petitioners' due process rights were not violated, as they were offered opportunities for exemptions and accommodations.

COVID-19 vaccine mandateleave without payCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78arbitration awardpublic policy violationdue process rightsemployment qualificationteacher disciplineCivil Service Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoerger v. Board of Education

This case concerns an appeal regarding the applicable Statute of Limitations for a breach of fair representation claim brought by former public school employees (Hoerger and Hyman) against their union and the Board of Education. The employees retired under an incentive plan but later discovered other employees received higher incentives through separate, privately negotiated agreements, facilitated by the union. The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and breach of the duty of fair representation, along with fraud. The union sought dismissal based on a shorter Statute of Limitations, citing federal labor law. However, the court ruled that federal precedents like DelCostello v Teamsters are inapplicable to public sector employment. Instead, the court applied New York State's six-year Statute of Limitations for contract actions (CPLR 213 [2]), analogizing the claim to legal malpractice for pecuniary damages. Consequently, the plaintiffs' action was deemed timely, and the Special Term's denial of the union's motion to dismiss was affirmed.

Statute of LimitationsBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationPublic Sector EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementRetirement Incentive PlanLegal Malpractice AnalogyFederal Labor Law DistinctionNew York State LawClass ActionFraudulent Inducement
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Board of Education of Watertown City School District & Watertown Education Ass'n

This case consolidates two appeals, 'The Watertown Dispute' and 'The Indian River Dispute,' concerning public sector arbitration under New York's Taylor Law. Both cases involve education associations and school districts in disputes over changes to health insurance benefits, specifically increased employee copayments. The associations filed grievances, which the districts denied, leading to demands for arbitration. Lower courts granted stays of arbitration, applying the 'Liverpool two-step' protocol and finding the disputes non-arbitrable. The Court of Appeals reverses these decisions, clarifying that the 'Liverpool' protocol should be applied without an anti-arbitrational presumption. The Court emphasizes that the merits of a grievance are for the arbitrator, and a court's role is merely to determine if there's a reasonable relationship between the dispute's subject matter and the collective bargaining agreement. Finding that health insurance benefits are clearly related to the CBAs, the Court compels arbitration in both cases.

Public Sector ArbitrationTaylor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ArbitrabilityHealth Insurance BenefitsCopayment IncreasesLiverpool Two-Step ProtocolJudicial Review of ArbitrationPresumption of ArbitrabilityCourt of Appeals (NY)
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 2,257 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