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

Sutera v. Transportation Security Administration

Plaintiff Leonard Sutera, a Lead Transportation Security Officer, was terminated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) after two urine samples tested positive for marijuana. Sutera alleged that he inadvertently inhaled secondhand smoke and that his termination violated his due process and privacy rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. He sought reinstatement, back pay, and damages. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, determining that Sutera's constitutional claims were barred by sovereign immunity or lacked merit. The court found that the termination procedures were constitutionally adequate and dismissed claims under the Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

Due ProcessPrivacy ActAdministrative Procedure ActSovereign ImmunitySummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationDrug TestingFederal EmployeesConstitutional LawSecondhand Smoke
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2007

Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority v. Brigid Hynes-Cherin

The Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) and its subsidiary, Regional Transit Service (RTS), moved to stay a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) decision dated July 30, 2007. The FTA had ordered RGRTA to cease providing school bus services on routes deemed "prohibited school bus operations" and barred RGRTA from receiving certain federal funds. RGRTA appealed this decision under the Administrative Procedure Act and sought a stay pending judicial review. The court, presided over by Judge Larimer, granted the stay in part, postponing the effective date of the FTA's order until October 1, 2007. This partial stay was granted primarily to prevent irreparable harm and potential chaos in student transportation due to the imminent start of the school year, despite the court not being convinced that RGRTA was likely to prevail on the merits or would suffer irreparable harm. The court emphasized the public interest in ensuring orderly student transportation. All other aspects of the plaintiff's motion for a stay were denied.

School Bus TransportationFederal Transit Administration (FTA)Stay OrderAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Judicial ReviewPublic InterestIrreparable HarmTripper ServicePublic TransportationCompetition Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Makransky v. Johnson

William Makransky, a convicted sex offender, sought to obtain a visa for his wife, a foreign national, but his petition was denied by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Makransky subsequently sued the USCIS and other federal officials, alleging violations of his constitutional rights, including the Ex Post Facto Clause, Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and various breaches of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. While the court asserted subject matter jurisdiction over the constitutional and legal challenges to the application of the Adam Walsh Act (AWA), it ultimately granted the defendants' motion. All of Makransky's claims, which challenged the AWA's application, the USCIS's interpretations, and administrative procedures, were dismissed with prejudice.

Immigration LawVisa PetitionSex OffenderAdam Walsh ActAdministrative Procedure ActConstitutional LawDue ProcessEx Post FactoEighth AmendmentJudicial Review
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meehan v. United States Postal Service

Plaintiff James Meehan, Administrator of Michael J. Meehan's estate, initiated an action against the U.S. Postal Service, U.S.A., and U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the Federal Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLI). He alleged that his son, Michael J. Meehan, was wrongfully denied free life insurance, despite having signed a waiver during his employment. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff had failed to exhaust the mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. The court concurred with the defendants, ruling that the claim constituted a breach of the collective bargaining agreement, thereby necessitating the exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to judicial review. Additionally, the court noted that the action would have been time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations and that Meehan had properly waived his life insurance.

Federal Group Life Insurance ActSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProceduresArbitrationExhaustion of Administrative RemediesStatute of LimitationsLife Insurance Waiver
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Templeton v. Veterans Administration

The plaintiff, a probationary federal employee, filed a pro se complaint against the Veterans Administration’s Medical Center, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and challenging his discharge on other grounds. The court found venue improper for the discrimination claim, noting it should be in California or Missouri based on statutory provisions. For the non-discrimination claim, the court determined the plaintiff failed to show procedural defects or arbitrary action in his dismissal, as the VA followed established regulations and provided rational bases for termination. Consequently, the non-discrimination claim was dismissed, and the discrimination claim was transferred to the Central District of California due to improper venue.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIIFederal EmploymentVenueProbationary EmployeeWrongful DischargeDue ProcessProperty InterestLiberty InterestAdministrative Decision
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Xerces Society (plaintiffs) sued the United States Environmental Protection Agency (defendant) and intervenor Bayer CropScience, challenging the EPA's registration of the insecticide spirotetramat. Plaintiffs alleged procedural and substantive deficiencies, primarily that the EPA failed to publish notice of applications, invite public comment, and publish registration decisions as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The court found the EPA had indeed committed serious procedural errors. Despite arguments from the EPA and Bayer against vacatur, the court decided to vacate the EPA's approvals of spirotetramat registrations and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with FIFRA and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Environmental LawInsecticide RegulationFIFRAAPAAdministrative LawNotice and CommentAgency ActionVacaturRemandSpirotetramat
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saks v. Franklin Covey Co.

Rochelle Saks, an employee of Franklin Covey, sued her employer and its health benefits plan administrator for denying coverage for surgical impregnation procedures for her infertility treatment. Saks claimed the denial violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), and the New York Human Rights Law, also alleging breach of contract. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Saks' complaint. The court found that Franklin Covey's insurance plan, which applied equally to all employees and excluded specific procedures including surgical impregnation, did not violate the ADA or Title VII. Furthermore, while infertility could be considered a pregnancy-related condition under the PDA, the plan's uniform exclusions still did not constitute discrimination. Finally, Saks' state law claims were preempted by ERISA.

Infertility TreatmentHealth Benefits PlanEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationERISA PreemptionSummary JudgmentSelf-funded InsuranceSurgical Procedures ExclusionMedical Necessity Definition
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 1997

Capers v. Giuliani

Plaintiffs, public-assistance recipients in New York City's Work Experience Program (WEP), alleged unsafe working conditions in their sanitation-related assignments, claiming violations of OSHA standards and inadequate provision of protective gear, facilities, and training. They also contended that regular City employees received more favorable treatment and a better grievance procedure. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief and class certification, while denying defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint on procedural grounds due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (Labor Law § 27-a) and the Social Services Law. The court emphasized that administrative agencies have exclusive original jurisdiction over such matters, and judicial review is only permissible after administrative channels have been exhausted. The preliminary injunction was also found to be improperly granted due to a lack of factual findings.

Work Experience Program (WEP)Public Employee Safety and Health ActExhaustion of Administrative RemediesInjunctive ReliefClass CertificationOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Labor LawSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2000

Farrell v. Child Welfare Administration

Plaintiff Janet Farrell, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit against the New York City Child Welfare Administration (CWA), alleging wrongful termination based on national origin in violation of Title VII and other civil rights statutes. Farrell claimed she was fired from her caseworker position in 1995 after failing a training program and receiving a low exam score. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found no evidence of national origin discrimination, concluding she was terminated due to her failure to complete requisite training. CWA moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court granted, dismissing the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The Court allowed Farrell to file an amended complaint by January 20, 2000, to provide more specific factual allegations to support her claims.

Employment discriminationTitle VIINational origin discriminationPro se litigantRule 12(c) motionJudgment on the pleadingsFailure to state a claimMunicipal liabilityCivil Rights ActNew York Executive Law
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 9,591 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