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
Nov 25, 2013

Janes v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

Plaintiffs Riva Janes, Bruce Schwartz, Bette Goldstein, and Hillel Abraham filed a class action against the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and their chairmen. They alleged that differential toll policies on New York City bridges, which provide discounts only to residents of specific areas, violate the Commerce Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as New York State law. The court, relying on prior Selevan decisions, determined that the toll policies were merely minor restrictions on travel and did not warrant strict scrutiny. Applying the three-factor Northwest Airlines test, the court concluded that the tolls were a fair approximation of use, not excessive relative to the benefits conferred on the integrated transit system, and did not discriminate against interstate commerce. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all federal and state law claims.

Toll PoliciesDifferential TollsDormant Commerce ClauseRight to TravelEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentConstitutional LawNew York City TransitVerrazano-Narrows BridgeCross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge
References
52
Case No. 732 F. Supp. 81
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1990

Burka v. New York City Transit Authority

This class action, initiated in 1985, challenged the New York City Transit Authority's (TA) marijuana testing procedures for employees and applicants. A partial settlement was proposed in October 1989, specifically addressing due process claims for a subclass of plaintiffs tested by the Laboratory for Chromatography (LFC) between January and September 1984. The settlement included expungement of adverse findings, eligibility for reinstatement/hiring, restoration of benefits, compensation (up to $25,000 for terminated, $5,000 for suspended), and arbitration provisions. The court reviewed several objections, approving amendments related to 'time in service' requirements for competitive examinations and handling job titles that no longer exist. A key ruling from the court was the inclusion of 'constructively terminated' employees—those compelled to resign due to LFC test results—within the settlement's definition of 'terminated employees,' mandating notice to the class and establishing arbitration for these claims. Ultimately, the court approved the settlement and its amendments, deeming them fair, adequate, and reasonable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) standards.

Class Action SettlementMarijuana Testing ProceduresDue Process ClaimsConstructive DischargeEmployment LawCivil RightsFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)Southern District of New YorkNew York City Transit AuthorityLabor Relations
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Salvador-Pajaro v. Port Authority

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gray v. New York City Transit Authority

The petitioner, a signal maintainer’s helper, was terminated from employment by the New York City Transit Authority after a urine test revealed marihuana use, aligning with T.O.P. No. 616, § 6.9 for employees with less than two years of service. The petitioner challenged this dismissal as arbitrary, citing a coworker, Joseph Joyce, who received a lesser penalty. Initially, the Supreme Court, Kings County, vacated the dismissal and remitted the matter for a new penalty. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that Joyce’s lenient punishment occurred after the Transit Authority had implemented a more forgiving policy. Consequently, the court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate arbitrary enforcement at the time of his dismissal, confirmed the Transit Authority's determination, and dismissed the petition on the merits.

Employment TerminationMarihuana UseDrug TestingCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousPolicy ChangeRetroactive ApplicationAppellate ReviewPublic Employee Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Michael Mack sued The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Dr. Scott Bergman for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law section 296. Mack, an African-American employee, alleged his supervisor, Iannacone, and Dr. Bergman subjected him to racial jokes, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. Mack was terminated after failing a drug test and refusing to provide a second urine sample, which he claimed was racially motivated. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims, finding that Mack failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom for the Port Authority's liability and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of wrongful termination or a racially hostile work environment. Additionally, state law claims were dismissed as New York anti-discrimination laws do not apply to the bi-state Port Authority.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing
References
59
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00461 [124 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Ass'n

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award that found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated a collective bargaining agreement by ending free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police sergeants. The court ruled that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that his interpretation, which vested retired members with a lifetime interest in these privileges, was not irrational. The decision also clarified that a contractual phrase regarding 'applicable law' pertains to the award's binding nature, not a ground for vacating the award due to a mistake of law.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesArbitrator's AuthorityAppellate ReviewContractual InterpretationLifetime BenefitsJudicial ReviewPublic Authority
References
5
Case No. 11 Civ. 8655(RWS)
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Plaintiff Ada Perez, a police officer for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), filed an amended complaint against the MTA and two officers, D’Agostino and Olshanetskiy, alleging violations of her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights related to compulsory urine tests during her employment. Perez, on restricted duty after an injury and not carrying a firearm, argued she was not in a safety-sensitive position and therefore not subject to random drug testing per an MTA agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing municipal claims against the MTA due to lack of a valid § 1983 claim but allowing the unreasonable search and seizure claims to proceed based on new factual allegations regarding the MTA-Police Benevolent Association Memorandum of Agreement. The court dismissed the due process claims, finding no deprivation of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest.

Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentUnreasonable Search and SeizureDue ProcessMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Municipal LiabilityMonell ClaimDrug Testing
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Straker v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Carl B. Straker, a former NYCTA train operator, challenged his termination following a mandatory drug test, alleging he was unable to provide a urine sample due to a medical condition. His amended complaint cited procedural due process violations (Count I), racial discrimination and conspiracy (Count II), misrepresentation by NYCTA (Count III), and disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act (Count IV) against NYCTA, plus a breach of fair representation (Count V) against the Transit Workers Union. The court dismissed Count I, dismissed Count II with leave to amend, denied dismissal for Counts III and IV while demanding a more definite statement for Count III, and denied TWU’s motion to dismiss Count V, reinterpreting it as a state law claim. Metropolitan Transit Authority, though named, was dismissed as a party due to non-existence.

Employment DiscriminationProcedural Due ProcessRacial DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRehabilitation ActConspiracyDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintDrug Testing
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. New York City Transit Authority

Robert Canty, a 15-year bus operator, was terminated by the New York City Transit Authority following two positive drug tests for marihuana. Despite a hearing examiner's recommendation, the vice-president for labor relations sustained the charge. The court found that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence, noting the toxicology expert's testimony on residual drug traces. Consequently, the court annulled the termination, dismissed the charge, and ordered Canty's reinstatement with back pay, as he was not afforded proper opportunity under the Transit Authority's own regulations.

drug testingmarihuana useemployee terminationadministrative reviewlack of substantial evidencereinstatementback paybus operatordrug counseling programdisciplinary action
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Dowleyne v. New York City Transit Authority

This case concerns Leslie Dowleyne, a bus driver for the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), who was disciplined after allegedly refusing a random drug test by failing to provide an adequate urine sample. The NYCTA's Medical Review Officer determined her failure constituted a refusal under federal Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. An arbitration panel initially sided with Dowleyne, but the Supreme Court confirmed this award. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's decision, denied the motion to confirm the arbitration award, granted the cross-petition, and vacated the arbitration award. The court ruled that strong public policy considerations, as embodied in specific federal DOT regulations, mandate the removal of employees who refuse drug tests from safety-sensitive functions, overriding any contrary provisions in a collective bargaining agreement.

Drug TestingBus DriverSafety-Sensitive FunctionArbitration AwardPublic Policy ExceptionDOT RegulationsFederal Transit AdministrationUrine SampleReinstatementCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 2,961 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