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

Salustio v. 106 Columbia Deli Corp.

Ruben Salustio and Arturo Vivaldo sued 106 Columbia Deli Corporation and Ibrahim Alzubairy for unpaid wages and overtime under the FLSA and NYLL. The court dismissed FLSA claims as the defendants' gross annual sales were below the $500,000 enterprise coverage threshold, but retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The court found Vivaldo was underpaid due to an invalid tip credit and unpaid overtime, and both plaintiffs were entitled to statutory damages for lack of proper wage notices and statements. Salustio was awarded $2,500, while Vivaldo received $16,428.66 in unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Wage and HourOvertime PayMinimum WageTip CreditStatutory DamagesLiquidated DamagesPrejudgment InterestEnterprise Coverage
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayes v. Local 106, International Union of Operating Engineers

The case involves plaintiff George A. Mayes suing Local 106, International Union of Operating Engineers, and its officers for alleged discrimination in job referrals and denial of rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The defendants counterclaimed, seeking expenses incurred from Mayes' "baseless charges" against union members James Tommaney and Dan Lewis, citing violations of the Union's constitution and state law tort and breach of contract claims. Mayes moved for summary judgment, arguing good faith in filing charges under LMRDA and lack of court jurisdiction over the counterclaims. The court found material factual disputes regarding Mayes' motives, asserting jurisdiction over the counterclaims under 29 U.S.C. § 185. It also determined that the tort and breach of contract claims were sufficiently pleaded, thereby denying Mayes' motion for summary judgment and allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

Labour LawUnion DisputeSummary JudgmentCounterclaimsLMRDAFree SpeechUnion ConstitutionJurisdictionTort ClaimsBreach of Contract
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norlite Corp. v. Local 106-106B of International Union of Operating Engineers

Norlite Corporation brought suit against Local 106-106B of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Wayne Horvitz to enjoin arbitration of a labor dispute concerning the discharge of two employees and to recover monetary damages for a wildcat strike. The Union counterclaimed, asserting that the discharges were subject to arbitration and seeking an order to compel it. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding arbitrability, while the complaint against Horvitz was dismissed by consent. The central issue was whether employee discharges fell under the collective bargaining agreement's arbitration clause. The court, citing national policy favoring arbitration and the agreement's broad language, concluded that the discharges were arbitrable, denying Norlite's motion and granting the Union's. Additionally, Norlite's second cause of action for damages related to the wildcat strike was dismissed as premature, pending the outcome of arbitration regarding employee reinstatement and back pay.

ArbitrationLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionNo-strike ClauseUnionEmployerFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06481 [222 AD3d 526]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2023

Lopez v. 106 LPA LLC

The case involves an injured worker, Gersson Lopez, who was struck by a concrete form at a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed motions for summary judgment concerning Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. The court modified the lower court's order by denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on Industrial Code § 23-2.2 (d) and reinstated that claim. It otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff successfully raised triable issues of fact regarding the applicability of the Labor Law sections. An appeal from a motion for leave to reargue was dismissed as nonappealable.

Labor LawConstruction SafetyFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodeAppellate DivisionTriable Issues of FactPlaintiff InjuryWorksite AccidentGeneral Contractor Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1986

Mayes v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 106

Plaintiffs George Mayes and John Gregory Fox, union members, initiated an action against their union, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 106, alleging violations of the LMRDA and breach of the union's constitution. They sought a preliminary injunction to alter the ballot for an upcoming union election, requesting separate listings for consolidated offices and the exclusion of certain candidates. The Union opposed the application and cross-moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion and dismissed the action, reasoning that granting the requested pre-election relief would inappropriately involve the court in supervising a union election, a role reserved for the Secretary of Labor under Title IV of the LMRDA. The Court affirmed that Title IV provides the exclusive post-election remedy for union election challenges.

Union Election DisputeLMRDALabor Union GovernancePreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderSubject Matter JurisdictionUnion BylawsInternal Union RemediesElection ChallengeSecretary of Labor Oversight
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lund v. Giauque

The case involves an appeal by Brenda Lund and Kristin Alrick, employees of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), against a trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss. Eric and Ruth Giauque sued Lund and Alrick for negligence in placing children for adoption, specifying claims against them in their individual capacities and not under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). Lund and Alrick sought dismissal under TTCA section 101.106(f), arguing the suit should be considered against the governmental unit, even if immunity wasn't waived. The trial court denied the motion, believing section 101.106(f) violated the Texas Constitution's open-courts provision by abrogating common-law remedies without a substitute. The appellate court reversed, holding that section 101.106(f) is a reasonable exercise of legislative police power to limit claims against individual governmental employees, thereby not violating the open-courts provision.

Governmental ImmunityOpen Courts ProvisionTexas Tort Claims ActMotion to DismissNegligence ClaimsGovernment Employee LiabilityStatutory ConstructionPolice Power DoctrineConstitutional Law (Texas)Due Process
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brinkerhoff v. County of St. Lawrence

The plaintiff, widow of New York State Trooper David Brinkerhoff, filed a wrongful death action against the St. Lawrence County Probation Department and its employees after Brinkerhoff was fatally shot while apprehending a fugitive. The plaintiff asserted claims under General Obligations Law § 11-106 and General Municipal Law § 205-e. The defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that no wrongful death cause of action exists under GOL § 11-106 and that the causal link for GML § 205-e was broken by the fugitive's intervening criminal acts. The court found that GOL § 11-106 does not create a wrongful death cause of action, only a survival claim for pain and suffering. Regarding GML § 205-e, the court determined that the defendants' delay in processing an arrest warrant was not an "indirect cause" of Brinkerhoff's death, as the immediate cause was the fugitive's act of shooting a different trooper, which led to Brinkerhoff's deployment. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint.

Wrongful DeathPolice Officer InjuryFirefighter's RuleGeneral Obligations Law § 11-106General Municipal Law § 205-eProbation ViolationCausationMotion to DismissIntervening Superseding ActSurvival Claim
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Joslin v. Michigan Mutual Insurance Co.

This workers' compensation case involved James Joslin, who was injured while driving a truck leased by Michael Horton to Alltrans, a common carrier. Joslin sued Alltrans' insurer, Michigan Mutual Insurance Company, alleging he was an Alltrans employee. The defendant contended Joslin was an employee of Horton, the truck owner, as per the lease agreement and T.C.A. § 50-6-106(1). The trial court found Joslin was not an Alltrans employee. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under T.C.A. § 50-6-106(1), common carriers are not considered employers of leased-operators or owner-operators, thus precluding Alltrans' liability.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorLease AgreementCommon CarrierMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityInsurance CarrierMaterial Evidence Rule
References
4
Case No. No. 07-0131
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2011

John Christopher Franka, M.D. and Nagakrishna Reddy, M.D. v. Stacey Velasquez and Saragosa Alaniz, Individually and as Next Friends of Their Minor Child, Saragosa Mario Alaniz

Justice Medina dissents from the Court's interpretation of Section 101.106 of the Texas Tort Claims Act. The dissent argues that the amendment to the Act does not require abandoning the precedent set in Kassen v. Hatley regarding official immunity for government-employed medical personnel. Medina asserts that the 'could have been brought' condition in Section 101.106(f) refers to actionable claims for which the government has consented to be sued, not merely the physical act of filing. The dissent criticizes the majority for effectively nullifying this condition, potentially forcing plaintiffs to dismiss actionable claims against individual doctors for non-existent claims against the government due to a lack of immunity waiver.

Texas Tort Claims ActOfficial ImmunityMedical MalpracticeGovernmental ImmunityElection of RemediesStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionSupreme Court of TexasBrachial Plexus InjuryShoulder Dystocia
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 58 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