Skip to main content

Boris Raishevich v. Charles Foster, Agent or Employee of the Nys Police

2nd CircuitApril 18, 2001No. 2000Cited 47 times
Mixed ResultNew York State Police$12,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Newman, Cabranes, Straub
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

Plaintiff prevailed on liability (admitted by defendant) but received reduced damages. Court of Appeals affirmed the reduction of compensatory damages from $24,000 to $12,000 but vacated the denial of attorneys' fees and remanded for reconsideration.

What This Ruling Means

**Police Employee Wins Wrongful Termination Case But Gets Reduced Payout** Boris Raishevich, a New York State Police employee, sued his supervisor Charles Foster after being wrongfully fired from his job. The employer actually admitted they were wrong to terminate Raishevich, so the main dispute became about how much money he should receive as compensation. The court ruled in Raishevich's favor on the wrongful termination claim. However, the Court of Appeals reduced his damage award from $24,000 to $12,000. In a partial victory for the employee, the court also sent the case back to a lower court to reconsider whether Raishevich should receive payment for his attorney's fees, which had initially been denied. This case shows workers that even when employers admit wrongdoing, the amount of compensation isn't guaranteed. Courts will review damage awards and may reduce them if they seem too high. However, the decision to reconsider attorney's fees is encouraging—it suggests wrongfully terminated employees may be able to recover the costs of legal representation, which can make it more feasible to pursue these cases. Workers should know that winning on the main issue doesn't always mean getting the full financial compensation originally sought.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.