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

Amaya v. Ballyshear LLC

Plaintiff Nelly Amaya filed an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Ballyshear LLC, Geller & Company LLC, and several individuals, alleging violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York Executive Law § 296. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion in part, dismissing Title VII claims for wrongful termination, retaliatory discharge, and constructive discharge, along with similar claims under § 1981 and NYSHRL. However, the Court denied the motion in part, allowing hostile work environment and workplace retaliation claims under NYSHRL, and hostile work environment and retaliatory workplace claims under § 1981 to proceed against all defendants, as well as the NYSHRL aiding and abetting claim.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981NYSHRLMotion to Dismiss
References
127
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2015

Campbell v. New York City Transit Authority

Plaintiff Collette Campbell sued the New York City Transit Authority alleging gender, age, and disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and hostile work environment under federal civil rights acts. Her claims arose from workplace incidents in 2009, including an altercation with a subordinate leading to disciplinary actions and a later charge for chronic absenteeism. Campbell also contended her subsequent retirement was a constructive discharge due to an intolerable work environment. The court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding Campbell failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, or constructive discharge.

Gender DiscriminationAge DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentConstructive DischargeEmployment LawWorkers' CompensationTransit Authority
References
121
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbetta v. Chemlawn Services Corp.

Plaintiff Joanne Barbetta sued Chemlawn Services Corporation, alleging sexual harassment and a hostile work environment under Title VII and New York state laws. Chemlawn moved for summary judgment. The court declined pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims, granting summary judgment for Chemlawn on those. However, the court denied Chemlawn's motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claim, finding exhaustion of administrative remedies and substantial factual questions regarding constructive discharge and the hostile work environment. The court ruled that continued employment did not necessarily negate constructive discharge and that evidence of workplace pornography and offensive conduct was sufficient to proceed to trial on the hostile environment claim.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawPendent JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesEEOCSexual Discrimination
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcimonde-Fisher v. Area203 Marketing, LLC

This case involves religious discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims brought by Lauren Gareimonde-Fisher, Jeffrey L. Harris, and Jeffrey L. Cole against Area203 Marketing. Plaintiffs allege that the company's owner, Carey Brown, fostered a workplace environment saturated with evangelical Christian beliefs, including mandatory religious events, biblical imagery, and derogatory comments toward non-Evangelical Christians. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all plaintiffs' hostile work environment and retaliation claims. Additionally, Plaintiff Cole's discrimination claim survived summary judgment due to direct evidence. However, the discrimination claims of Plaintiffs Harris and Garcimonde-Fisher were dismissed due to a lack of sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence.

Religious DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEmployment LawEvangelical ChristianityCatholicismWorkplace HarassmentProtected Activity
References
70
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01755
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2024

Matter of Anderson v. City of Yonkers

Melissa Anderson, a second-grade teacher, filed a workers' compensation claim alleging psychological injuries due to COVID-19 exposure and anxiety about returning to in-person teaching. The Workers' Compensation Board had previously disallowed the claim, finding the stress was not greater than that experienced by similarly situated teachers. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, highlighting an inconsistency in how the Board assesses psychological versus physical injury claims related to COVID-19, stating that both should be compensable to the same extent if caused by a workplace accident. The court clarified that a claimant could establish a workplace accident for COVID-19-related injuries by demonstrating specific exposure or an elevated risk in the work environment. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for reconsideration in line with the court's guidance, requiring an assessment of a workplace accident and causal connection while considering the claimant's unique vulnerabilities.

COVID-19Psychological InjuryWorkers' CompensationWorkplace StressCausationAppellate DivisionRemandDisparate TreatmentTeacherEmployment Law
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yarde v. Good Samaritan Hospital

This decision addresses motions for summary judgment in a case involving claims of racially-motivated discharge, hostile work environment, and unfair representation. Plaintiff, a black nurse named Yarde, was terminated from Good Samaritan Hospital (GSH) for breaching patient confidentiality and failing to attend investigatory meetings. The court dismissed her claims of discriminatory and retaliatory discharge against GSH, as well as all claims against her union (1199 SEIU) and its representative Lorraine Freiberg, finding no sufficient evidence of discrimination, retaliation, or unfair representation. However, the court denied GSH's motion for summary judgment regarding Yarde's hostile work environment claim against GSH and its employees Elizabeth Burton and Linda Bassi, allowing that specific claim to proceed to trial due to unresolved factual disputes concerning racial remarks and differential treatment.

Summary JudgmentRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentUnfair RepresentationPatient Confidentiality BreachWorkplace RetaliationEmployment LawUnion GrievanceNurse TerminationChemical Dependency Unit
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2006

Claim of Melo v. Jewish Board of Family & Children's Services, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The claimant, a night shift direct care worker, was assaulted and raped by a stranger in her workplace at the Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, Inc. in 1997. The Board determined that her injury did not arise out of her employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court found no causal link between the claimant's employment and the attack, noting it did not occur while she was performing duties, the building was not identified as her specific workplace, the assailant was not a coworker, and there was no employment-related motivation or increased risk from her work environment.

Assault in workplaceRapeInjury arising out of employmentCourse of employmentCausal relationshipWork environment riskEmployer liabilityWorkers' Compensation Board appealUnidentified assailantOff-duty injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarado v. Jeffrey, Inc.

Plaintiff Eduardo Alvarado, a gay, Hispanic man, sued his former employer Just Jeffrey and its owner Nordstrom, Inc. for alleged racial and sexual orientation discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under federal, New York State, and New York City human rights laws. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court found that Alvarado failed to present sufficient evidence that the workplace conditions were objectively severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile environment or that his discharge was constructive. Furthermore, his retaliation claim based on a written reprimand lacked sufficient evidence of pretext.

DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeRetaliationRacial DiscriminationSexual Orientation DiscriminationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawWorkplace DisputeSpoliation of Evidence
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Carlson-Fanelli v. St. Luke's Memorial Hospital Center

Claimant, with a history of multiple chemical sensitivity, developed illness due to workplace exposure to various chemicals and fumes while working as a dietetic technician in a hospital. Her symptoms worsened significantly over time, particularly after increasing exposure in the hospital's kitchen, eventually leading her to cease employment in June 1997. Initially, the Workers’ Compensation Board found an occupational disease but later issued an amended decision recognizing it as an accidental injury, which the employer and carrier appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's amended decision, concluding there was substantial evidence that the claimant's preexisting condition was aggravated by her workplace environment. Medical testimony supported the finding that her exposure resulted in a totally disabling and permanent compensable injury.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseChemical SensitivityMultiple Chemical SensitivityPreexisting ConditionAggravation of ConditionWorkplace ExposureMedical TestimonyDisability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garvin v. Sw. Corr., L. L.C.

Plaintiff Justin Garvin filed a lawsuit against his employer, Southwestern Correctional, LLC, alleging claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. His claims included gender discrimination, hostile work environment due to sexual favoritism, and retaliation after complaining about workplace conduct. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the claims for hostile work environment, gender discrimination, and wrongful discharge were dismissed with prejudice, finding insufficient severity of harassment to support these claims. However, the court allowed the retaliation claim to proceed, determining that Plaintiff adequately pleaded protected activity and a causal connection to adverse employment actions.

Gender DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeTitle VIITexas Commission on Human Rights ActEmployment LawMotion to DismissSexual FavoritismWorkplace Harassment
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 1,589 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