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

Gray v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc.

Eddie Gray sued Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc., and three individual defendants for employment discrimination under Title VII, New York Executive Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, along with unlawful termination under New York's whistleblower statute. Defendants moved to dismiss various claims. The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing portions of the Title VII claims as time-barred, all Title VII claims against individual defendants, and the claims under the whistleblower statute and New York City Human Rights Law entirely. The court found that Gray's 1987 and 1989 Title VII claims were time-barred, not falling under the 'continuing violation' exception. It also ruled that individual defendants cannot be held personally liable under Title VII and dismissed those claims. Finally, Gray's whistleblower claim was dismissed as time-barred, and his New York City Human Rights Law claim was dismissed due to non-compliance with statutory prerequisites.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIITime-Barred ClaimsWhistleblower StatuteNew York City Human Rights LawIndividual LiabilityContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsRetaliatory TerminationRacial Discrimination
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McMahon v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc.

This case addresses a discovery dispute in a whistleblower action. Plaintiff Patrick McMahon sued the New York Organ Donor Network, Inc., alleging wrongful termination after he reported concerns about illegal organ procurement practices, in violation of Labor Law § 740. Defendant countered that McMahon was fired for poor performance as a probationary employee. McMahon sought to compel the production of personnel records for other probationary transplant coordinators to compare performance evaluations. The court partially granted McMahon's motion, ordering disclosure of relevant records from 2009-2013, and denied the defendant's cross-motion for a protective order, emphasizing the relevance of comparison evidence in whistleblower cases.

Whistleblower ActRetaliation ClaimDiscovery DisputePersonnel Files DisclosureLabor Law Section 740Motion to CompelProtective OrderProbationary EmploymentWork PerformanceOrgan Donation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1995

Schaeffer v. City of New York

Plaintiff Allen Schaeffer, a former HRA employee, sued the City of New York and HRA employees for alleged retaliation after filing a complaint with the Department of Investigations (DOI) concerning HRA's disciplinary procedures. His claims included violations of First Amendment rights (protected speech) and the Equal Protection Clause (whistleblower policy), as well as a state claim for unpaid wages. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal claims, finding Schaeffer's speech not constitutionally protected as it pertained to internal office affairs, and lacking causation for alleged retaliation. The Equal Protection claim also failed as whistleblowers are not a protected class. The court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claim.

First Amendment RightsEqual Protection ClauseWhistleblower PolicyRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentPublic Employee SpeechCausal ConnectionAdverse Employment ActionGovernment DiscretionInternal Affairs Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barker v. Peconic Landing at Southold, Inc.

Plaintiff Chris J. Barker sued his employer, Peconic Landing at Southold, Inc., and three individual employees, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under federal and New York State law. Plaintiff, who suffers from hearing loss and a rotator cuff injury, claims he was discriminated against based on his disabilities and retaliated against for reporting alleged misconduct, including drug use and theft, at the facility. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under the New York whistleblower statute (Section 740) and that initiating a Section 740 claim waives other state and federal discrimination claims. The court denied the motion, finding that the whistleblower claim did not waive the discrimination claims and that the allegations regarding drug use and theft were sufficient at this stage to state a plausible claim under Section 740.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationDisability DiscriminationWhistleblower ProtectionAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawNew York Labor LawMotion to DismissPlausibility StandardPublic Health and Safety
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hagemann v. Molinari

Plaintiff Raymond Hagemann, an employee of Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari, accused co-workers Lee Covino and Marilyn Blohm of racial insensitivity towards Ed Watkins, an African-American liaison for a youth program. Hagemann was subsequently fired by Molinari. Hagemann sued Molinari, Covino, Blohm, and the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985(3), and also brought state law defamation and whistleblower claims. The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the First Amendment and whistleblower claims, finding issues of fact regarding retaliation and the plaintiff's belief in improper governmental action. However, the court granted summary judgment on the due process, Section 1981, and conspiracy claims, and dismissed the defamation claim due to absolute immunity.

First AmendmentWhistleblower ProtectionRetaliationRacial InsensitivityPublic EmployeeSummary JudgmentDue ProcessSection 1981ConspiracyDefamation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meadows v. PLANET AID, INC.

Plaintiff, Bob Meadows, a 64-year-old African-American and Native-American former trucker, sued his ex-employer Planet Aid, Inc., and supervisors Rodney Carter and Jostein Pedersen, alleging age and race discrimination, FLSA and NYSHRL violations, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, retaliation, whistleblower violations, hostile work environment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted dismissal for NYSHRL, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, Title VII retaliation, N.Y. Labor Law § 740 whistleblower, and emotional distress claims. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for age and race discrimination, FLSA, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation claims, allowing them to proceed.

Age DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFair Labor Standards ActNew York State Human Rights LawBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissEmployment LawPleading Standards
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2013

Dillon v. Suffolk County Department of Health Services

Dr. Patricia Dillon, a medical doctor, filed a lawsuit against Suffolk County, Dr. Humayun Chaudhry, and Dr. Vincent Geraci, alleging First Amendment retaliation and violations of the New York State whistleblower statute. Dr. Dillon claimed adverse employment actions, including suspension and charges under New York State Civil Service Section 75, after she reported consciously indifferent medical treatment, possible prisoner abuse, and illegal conduct at the Riverhead Correctional Facility. The Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing her speech was not constitutionally protected and lacked a causal connection to adverse actions. The court denied summary judgment on the First Amendment claim, finding her speech concerned matters of public concern and was made as a citizen, and that a causal connection was established by temporal proximity. However, the court granted summary judgment on the New York State Whistleblower claim due to her failure to comply with the required notice of claim period.

First Amendment retaliationWhistleblower protectionPublic employee speechCorrectional facility medical carePrisoner abuseCivil Service LawSummary judgmentFreedom of speechEmployment lawRetaliation claim
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John Tipaldo v. Christopher Lynn

Plaintiff John Tipaldo, an Acting Assistant Commissioner for Planning and Engineering at New York City’s Department of Transportation (DOT), reported an alleged scheme by his superiors, defendants Christopher Lynn and Richard Malchow, to award a signage contract in violation of public bidding rules. Tipaldo initially informed his immediate supervisors and then the DOT Inspector General, leading to alleged retaliation by Lynn and Malchow, including exclusion from meetings, removal from projects, negative comments, and eventual demotion. Tipaldo commenced a whistleblower action under Civil Service Law § 75-b, seeking reinstatement and lost compensation. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to Tipaldo and later modifying the damages judgment to include prejudgment interest and reinstatement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that Tipaldo made a good faith effort to report the misconduct and that prejudgment interest is available in such actions, concluding that Labor Law § 740 (5) intends to make whistleblowing plaintiffs whole.

WhistleblowerRetaliationPublic Bidding ViolationsCivil Service Law § 75-bLabor Law § 740 (5)Prejudgment InterestGood Faith ComplianceGovernmental MisconductMunicipal EmployeesDepartment of Investigation
References
6
Case No. 93-CV-1524
Regular Panel Decision

Clarke v. TRW, INC.

This case involves a whistleblower lawsuit filed by four former employees—Peter J. Clarke, Edward J. Dixon, Brian R. Fisher, and Paul J. Wheeler—against their former employer, TRW, Inc. The plaintiffs allege retaliation under New York's whistleblower law (N.Y.Lab.Law § 740) for reporting safety concerns related to defective automobile parts manufactured by TRW, specifically the Carter RFI Module and Ford ISO Relay. The alleged defects, which included improper testing and manufacturing flaws, presented a substantial danger of vehicle fires and loss of brake control. The court, addressing TRW's motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs' cross-motion to file a second amended complaint, ruled that the plaintiffs' claims based on violations of 49 U.S.C. §§ 30116 and 30118 were sufficiently pleaded to proceed. However, claims relying on 49 C.F.R. §§ 571.105, 571.301, and 49 U.S.C. §§ 30112, 30115, 30122 were dismissed as these regulations apply to finished vehicles, not component parts. The court also denied the plaintiffs' requests for punitive damages and a jury trial, citing that these are not available remedies under N.Y.Lab.Law § 740(5). Ultimately, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiffs were granted partial leave to amend their complaint within 45 days.

WhistleblowerRetaliationMotor Vehicle SafetyProduct LiabilityManufacturing DefectsComponent PartsFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissMotion to AmendNTMVSA
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catania v. Herbst

Plaintiff Catania, a supervisory USPS employee, sued Norma Herbst, a USPS clerk, for defamation after Herbst made statements to management regarding Catania's work habits (sleeping, fuel theft). The U.S. Attorney certified Herbst was acting within the scope of her employment, leading to the substitution of the United States as the defendant under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA). Catania opposed this, but the court found Herbst's whistleblowing complaints were made within the scope of her employment. Consequently, the substitution was upheld, and since the FTCA bars defamation claims against the United States, the entire action was dismissed.

DefamationScope of EmploymentFederal Torts Claims ActFTCA ImmunitySubstitution of PartiesWhistleblower ProtectionUSPS EmployeeGovernmental ImmunityNew York State LawFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 29 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