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

Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc.

The plaintiff, a black female airport operations agent for American Airlines, sought damages and injunctive relief against the airline's grooming policy which prohibited all-braided hairstyles, specifically 'corn rows'. She alleged discrimination based on race and sex, violating the Thirteenth Amendment, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, arguing the style held cultural significance for Black women. The court dismissed claims under the Thirteenth Amendment and the facial challenges to the policy, determining that braided hairstyles are not immutable characteristics and the policy applied equally to all. It also denied class certification. However, the plaintiff's claim of discriminatory *application* of the grooming policy was allowed to proceed, and individual defendants Crandall and Zurlo were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationGrooming PolicyRacial DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Thirteenth AmendmentBraided HairstyleCorn RowsClass Action Denial
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiffs Marie Scott and Lori Fahs, employees of American Airlines, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their employer from prohibiting them from wearing Transport Workers Union (TWU) pins and from disciplining them for doing so. The defendant argued that the pins caused disruption to efficiency and customer relations, unlike pins worn by employees of certified unions. However, the court found no rational basis for the employer to forbid agents seeking union recognition from wearing union pins, especially since other unionized employees were permitted to wear them. The court concluded that the employer's actions constituted unlawful interference with the employees' right to organize under the Railway Labor Act and the Labor Management Relations Act, as it interfered with the designation of representatives and employee self-organization. The motion for a preliminary injunction was therefore granted.

Union insigniaPreliminary injunctionLabor lawRailway Labor ActLabor Management Relations ActEmployee rightsUnion organizingWorkplace disciplineEmployer interferenceCollective bargaining
References
7
Case No. 16-01138 (SHL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2018

Krakowski v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re Amr Corp.)

Plaintiffs John Krakowski, Kevin Horner, and M. Alicia Sikes, former TWA pilots now employed by American Airlines, challenged an interest arbitration award concerning their contractual rights, alleging due process violations due to arbitrator bias and ex parte communications. The arbitration, conducted under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), resolved an impasse between American Airlines and the Allied Pilots Association (APA) regarding a new collective bargaining agreement and the seniority rights of TWA pilots. Defendants American and APA moved to dismiss the adversary proceeding, arguing plaintiffs lacked standing and the action was time-barred. The Court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that individual employees generally lack standing to challenge an arbitration award where the union and employer were the sole parties, and further, that the complaint was untimely under the RLA's 10-day statute of limitations, which the Court found was not subject to equitable tolling.

Arbitration AwardRailway Labor ActStanding (Legal)Statute of LimitationsEquitable TollingDue ProcessArbitrator BiasEx Parte CommunicationsCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Law
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spielberg v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiffs secured a $2,225,000 verdict against American Airlines, Inc., for emotional distress caused by severe airplane turbulence. Defendants subsequently filed a motion for a new trial or remittitur. The court, applying New York's 'deviates materially' standard for remittitur in diversity cases, upheld the $150,000 awards for past emotional distress for most plaintiffs, finding them consistent with comparable New York verdicts. However, the court granted remittitur for plaintiff Melissa Katz's $150,000 award, concluding that the lay testimony from her mother lacked sufficient evidentiary basis to support emotional damages for the two-year-old child.

emotional distressremittiturairplane turbulencejury verdictNew York lawdamagespast emotional distressfuture emotional distresssufficiency of evidenceminor plaintiff
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waite v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiff Basil Waite, a baggage handler for AMR Services Corporation (an independent contractor for American Airlines), suffered a personal injury to his arm on November 18, 1995, when it got caught in a conveyor belt at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He filed a personal injury action against American Airlines, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of duty to maintain a safe premises. American Airlines moved for summary judgment. The court considered theories of recovery including assumed specific duty, common law/statutory duty to maintain safe premises, common law/statutory duty to control work, and vicarious liability for inherently dangerous work. The court found that American Airlines did not breach any duties and the activity was not inherently dangerous. Therefore, American's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityNegligenceWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityBaggage Handling AccidentFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Labor LawVicarious Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'ALESSANDRO v. American Airlines, Inc.

Angelo M. D'Alessandro died after falling from a mobile passenger lounge at Mexico City airport while boarding an American Airlines flight in 1993. His estate sued American Airlines under the Warsaw Convention, seeking damages for wrongful death. American Airlines moved for partial summary judgment, arguing its conduct did not meet the 'wilful misconduct' standard under Article 25(1), which limits damages to $75,000, and moved in limine to exclude evidence of lost earnings. The court denied both motions, finding factual issues regarding wilful misconduct based on evidence that the lounge driver intentionally failed to use a security bar, despite knowing the risk, and was unlicensed. The court also held that New York law, which considers reckless disregard as wilful misconduct, applies, and there are triable issues regarding lost earnings.

Warsaw ConventionWilful MisconductDamages LimitationChoice of LawWrongful DeathAirline LiabilitySummary JudgmentLost EarningsReckless DisregardMobile Lounge Accident
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union

American Airlines sought a preliminary injunction against the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), its officers, and members, to prevent a threatened strike. The dispute stemmed from a proposed merger between American Airlines and Eastern Air Lines, which the TWU vigorously opposed, demanding absolute guarantees for job security and seniority for its 34,000 employees. The union issued public telegrams threatening a strike and scheduled a meeting to set an effective strike date. The court determined that the union's failure to utilize the dispute resolution machinery provided by the Railway Labor Act, before threatening a strike, constituted a basis for injunction. Concluding that such a strike would cause irreparable damage to American Airlines and significantly impact national transportation and defense, the court granted the preliminary injunction.

StrikePreliminary InjunctionMergerAirline IndustryLabor DisputeRailway Labor ActJob SecuritySeniorityUnion ProtestCollective Bargaining
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Siben v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiffs Andrew Siben and Leslie Hyman Siben sued American Airlines, Inc. after their luggage was lost during their honeymoon, alleging negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and emotional distress. American Airlines moved for partial summary judgment, arguing the Warsaw Convention limited liability, and also sought dismissal of state law claims. The court denied partial summary judgment, finding American's baggage checks did not comply with the Convention. The motion to dismiss was granted for claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but denied for claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation, allowing those claims to proceed.

Lost LuggageWarsaw ConventionInternational Air TravelLiability LimitationSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFraudNegligent MisrepresentationEmotional DistressAirline Negligence
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sullivan v. American Airlines, Inc.

Thomas Sullivan sued American Airlines, Sabena Airlines, and George Solimán for defamation and tortious interference with his employment contract. This federal action, removed from state court, followed an arbitration decision upholding Sullivan's discharge from American Airlines for attempted pilferage. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing collateral estoppel based on the prior arbitration award. The court granted summary judgment, concluding that the arbitration provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the pilferage issue, thus precluding Sullivan's defamation claim, and dismissed the tortious interference claim due to lack of exclusive malice.

Collateral EstoppelArbitration AwardDefamationTortious InterferenceEmployment ContractSummary JudgmentJust Cause TerminationPilferageUnion GrievanceIssue Preclusion
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2001

Orellana v. American Airlines

The plaintiff, an employee of Dramar Construction, was injured after falling from an elevated roof section at LaGuardia Airport while working on an American Airlines building. He used insulation bundles as makeshift steps. The plaintiff sued American Airlines and Premier Roofing Company, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for inadequate safety devices. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment, citing factual disputes over ladder availability. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that merely having ladders elsewhere did not satisfy the statute's requirement for proper protection, thus granting summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff.

personal injurypremises liabilityconstruction accidentelevated work sitesafety devicesstatutory violationsummary judgmentappellate reviewnondelegable dutyproximate cause
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,207 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