Updated Daily
Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.
The Appeals Board reverses the WCJ’s decision that Whole Foods must reimburse Safeway for benefits paid to the applicant. The Board finds that Safeway failed to prove a second cumulative trauma injury by substantial medical evidence.
The defendant, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, appealed an order regarding discovery motions in a personal injury action. The Supreme Court had previously denied the defendant's motion to compel plaintiff Annette Smalls to provide academic, neurological, and/or psychological records, and had granted the plaintiffs' motion to preclude a deposition of a nonparty social worker and to quash a subpoena. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court ruled that Annette Smalls must furnish authorizations for her academic records to be reviewed in camera by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for redaction of any privileged material prior to disclosure to the defendant. The rest of the appellant's motion was denied, and the order was otherwise affirmed. The court found academic records relevant but emphasized the protection of privileged information.
The case concerns an appeal by candidates (appellants) challenging the Civil Service Commission of the City of New York's grading methodology for a promotional examination. The appellants protested the unannounced use of a conversion formula that effectively raised the passing score from 70% to 78% for the 'Administrative Associate' position. The court found that the commission failed to provide sufficient advance notice and details regarding the adjustment of the passing grade, violating established civil service rules. Consequently, the judgment that initially dismissed the petition was reversed. The court granted the petitioners' requested relief, thereby reinstating their petition.
The petitioner, a Head Industrial Shop Worker (Grade 11) at Pilgrim State Hospital, sought reclassification to Chief Industrial Shop Worker (Grade 13) through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court at Special Term dismissed the application, a decision subsequently appealed. The appellate court found adequate basis in the record for the denial of the petitioner's application, concluding that it was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The Director of Classification and Compensation had determined that the petitioner was not performing the duties of a Chief Industrial Shop Worker and that the position was no longer necessary at Pilgrim State Hospital as patients or inmates were no longer involved in the relevant operations. The judgment was affirmed without costs.
This appeal concerns 305 non-union production and maintenance employees of the Aluminum Company of America seeking unemployment compensation after a strike called by their certified bargaining agent, the C.I.O. Union. The strike occurred from October 17 to December 7, 1949, leading to the shutdown of the Alcoa Works. The Chancellor and Board of Review denied compensation under Section 5, subd. E(2) of the Tennessee Employment Security Act, ruling that the complainants belonged to the same 'grade or class' of workers participating in the dispute. The court affirmed this decision, interpreting 'grade or class' to include all members of the Industrial Bargaining Unit represented by the striking union, concluding there was a reasonable basis in law for the Board's findings.
Petitioner, a grade IV head cleaner, was charged with misconduct for theft in 1993 under Civil Service Law § 75. After a disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer found him guilty, recommending a 30-day suspension. Respondent adopted the finding but demoted petitioner to a grade II cleaner and reassigned him. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, claiming the determination was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court annulled respondent's decision and ordered reinstatement with back pay. Respondent appealed. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding the proper standard of review was 'substantial evidence' and that the respondent's determination of misconduct was supported by substantial evidence. The court also found the penalty of demotion was not disproportionate and dismissed the petition.
The petitioner, a senior keyboard specialist for BOCES, challenged the reduction of her work hours from full-time to 75% due to reduced workload. She argued this violated Civil Service Law § 80, asserting that employees with less seniority maintained full hours. The Supreme Court dismissed her petition, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that a reduction in work hours, without a corresponding reduction in rank or salary grade or conversion to a part-time position as defined by local rules, does not constitute an "abolition or reduction in rank or salary grade" under Civil Service Law § 80. The court emphasized a strict interpretation of the statute's plain meaning and noted that legislative efforts to include hour reductions in the statute were previously vetoed, indicating legislative intent.
This case is an appeal of a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed petitioner’s applications to review denials of out-of-title work grievances. The petitioner, representing five state employees at the Office of Mental Health (OMH), alleged that employees were improperly assigned duties of a Treatment Team Leader, a higher-grade position, violating their collective bargaining agreement and Civil Service Law § 61 (2). OMH and the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations (GOER) denied the grievances, finding the duties appropriate to the employees' titles. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that GOER's determination was rational. The court found that the assigned duties were a reasonable extension of the employees' in-title duties and that the employees did not meet the minimum requirements for the higher-grade Treatment Team Leader position.
The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at Dallas (Appellants) are appealing a trial court's decision that granted summary judgment to Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, and intervenor Marilyn Cameron. The core issue revolves around an open records request for the names of human research subjects involved in a national security/terrorism study, which the University argued should remain confidential under Texas Government Code § 552.101 due to privacy concerns and academic freedom. The trial court's ruling mandated the disclosure of this information. Appellants contend that the Attorney General's motion for summary judgment lacked evidentiary support for negating confidentiality and that a more robust privacy analysis, encompassing the First Amendment right to academic freedom, is warranted. The case seeks a reversal of the summary judgment and a remand for a full trial on the merits with a broadened legal framework for privacy.
The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.
Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.