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. ADJ8619481
Regular
Feb 06, 2014

MICAELA OROZCO vs. BABETTE BAKERY, INC., THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Micaela Orozco's petition for reconsideration against Babette Bakery, Inc. and The Hartford. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed untimely. Even if timely, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits as per the administrative law judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedReport and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ's ReportAdministrative Law JudgeBabette BakeryThe HartfordADJ8619481
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers, International Union of America v. General Baking Co.

The case involves a union, representing production and maintenance employees, suing several bakery companies for an alleged lockout. The union brought the action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, claiming a breach of the no-lockout provisions in their collective bargaining agreements. The alleged lockout occurred when the defendant bakery companies halted operations and sent home the plaintiff union's members, even though there was no direct labor dispute between them. This action was a response to a strike by a separate drivers' union against one of the bakery companies. The court defined a lockout as an employer withholding work to gain a concession *from their employees*. Since the defendants were not in a dispute with the plaintiff union and their actions were not intended to coerce concessions from them, the court ruled that no lockout had occurred. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Labor LawLockoutCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActBreach of ContractNo-lockout ClauseStrikeUnionEmployer-employee Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Harvest Bakery Inc.

This case involves allegations by plaintiffs Maximino Rivera, Miguel Roldan, and Oscar Quintanilla against Harvest Bakery, Inc., Robert Marconti, and Jose Gonzalez. The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to pay overtime and spread of hours wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The core of the dispute revolves around whether the defendants had a common policy of not paying these wages to their production workers. The Court addresses the defendants' arguments regarding the prematurity and mootness of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, ultimately rejecting them. The Court then proceeds to grant the plaintiffs' motion, certifying a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees who worked for Harvest Bakery in New York, and appoints class counsel, finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, and superiority) have been met.

Wage and Hour LawOvertime PaySpread of Hours WagesClass Action CertificationRule 23(b)(3)FLSA ViolationNYLL ViolationCommonalityTypicalityNumerosity
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Yanas v. Bimbo Bakeries

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for wrist pain, including carpal tunnel syndrome and flexor tendonitis, alleging it was an occupational disease from duties at Bimbo Bakeries. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the claim, finding insufficient evidence of repetitive motion and rejecting physician opinions for lacking adequate understanding of the claimant’s work and medical history. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. On appeal, the court further affirmed, emphasizing that the Board’s factual findings regarding occupational disease, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed, and that the Board is entitled to reject medical evidence deemed inadequately founded.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRepetitive Strain InjuryMedical CausationSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard DecisionPhysician TestimonyWork ActivitiesCredibility Assessment
References
8
Case No. 526783
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Matter of Scott v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.

Claimant, Erin Scott, worked for 20 years at a commercial bakery, performing duties involving prolonged standing and repetitive lifting and bending. In August 2011, she experienced back pain but continued working. Her condition progressively worsened over three years, leading her to file an incident report and seek medical treatment in May 2014. She filed a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The carrier contested, arguing it was an accidental injury and time-barred, but the Workers' Compensation Board and the Appellate Division affirmed the decision that it was a causally-related occupational disease, not time-barred, as her job duties exacerbated her underlying back condition.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation LawCausationRepetitive Motion InjuryLower Back PainDegenerative Disc DiseaseStatute of LimitationsAppellate DivisionMedical TestimonyBoard Review
References
10
Case No. 11 CV 1471
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Industry International Pension Fund

The case involves multiple plaintiffs, participants in the Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund Pension Plan, who challenged an amendment to the plan. This amendment eliminated the ability for participants no longer in covered employment to "age into" certain early retirement benefits (Plan C and Plan G). Plaintiffs alleged this violated Section 204(g) of ERISA, the anti-cutback rule, which protects accrued benefits. The Court, applying the standard for judgment on the pleadings, found that the Plan C and Plan G benefits are early retirement or retirement-type subsidies and thus accrued benefits under ERISA. Relying on statutory text and precedent like *Ahng v. Allsteel, Inc.*, the Court ruled that the amendment impermissibly cut back accrued benefits for those employees who had met the years of service requirement and could continue to age into their pension benefits even after separation from employment. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motions for judgment on the pleadings and denied the defendants' motions.

ERISAPension PlanRetirement BenefitsAnti-cutback RuleEmployee BenefitsJudgment on the PleadingsDefined Benefit PlanEarly RetirementAccrued BenefitsPlan Amendment
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bakery Confectionery Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union, Local 116 v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

This case involved a dispute between the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, Local 116, and Wegmans Food Markets concerning the arbitrability of an employee's termination. Employee Derrick McCullough was dismissed for alleged theft, and the Union sought to compel arbitration, contending the collective bargaining agreement's theft exclusion was ambiguous or misapplied. The District Court granted summary judgment for Wegmans, denying the Union's cross-motion, concluding that the exclusionary clause was unambiguous. The court found Wegmans' characterization of McCullough's conduct as theft was valid based on the evidence presented at the time of termination, thereby rendering the grievance non-arbitrable.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActTheft Exclusion ClauseEmployee TerminationGrievance ProcedureContract InterpretationFederal District CourtUnion Rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drake Bakeries Inc. v. Local 50, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers International

Plaintiff Drake Bakeries, Incorporated, initiated a lawsuit to recover damages for an alleged breach of a "no-strike provision" within a collective bargaining agreement, pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to stay the trial, seeking to compel arbitration as outlined in the collective bargaining agreement and permitted by the United States Arbitration Act. The plaintiff opposed this motion, arguing that the arbitration provision was permissive, that the union waived its arbitration rights by striking, and that the defendants had waived their rights by failing to initiate arbitration. The Court, however, found no merit in the plaintiff's arguments, concluding that the arbitration provisions were mandatory, a breach of contract does not automatically waive arbitration rights, and the defendants did not waive their rights since the plaintiff, as the aggrieved party, had not attempted to initiate arbitration. Consequently, the Court enforced the arbitration agreement and granted the defendant's motion to stay further proceedings in the suit.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseStay of ProceedingsLabor-Management Relations ActUnited States Arbitration ActContract EnforcementWaiverGrievance ProcedureMandatory Arbitration
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1986

Montalvo v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union of America Local No. 3

The plaintiff, an employee of Entenmanns Bakery, sustained injuries in an automobile accident and received disability benefits from the defendant. Upon settling a third-party lawsuit related to the accident, the defendant sought to impose a lien on the settlement proceeds for the benefits paid, citing the "Bakery and Confectionery Workers Local No. 3 Welfare Fund Deed of Trust". The plaintiff initiated an action for a declaratory judgment, arguing that Workers’ Compensation Law and Insurance Law provisions precluded the defendant's lien. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and to strike the defendant's affirmative defenses. On appeal, the order was modified: the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant’s first and second affirmative defenses was granted, and the order was otherwise affirmed.

LienDisability benefitsWorkers' Compensation LawInsurance LawGeneral Associations LawSummary judgmentAffirmative defensesImproper serviceDeclaratory judgmentAppellate review
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00059
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2023

Kirby v. Carlo's Bakery 42nd & 8th LLC

Plaintiff Chontay Kirby appealed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which had granted the defendants' motion to dismiss her first through fourth causes of action. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied the defendants' motion, and reinstated Kirby's causes of action. Kirby had sufficiently stated a claim for employment discrimination under both New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, alleging racial discrimination by her supervisor. Furthermore, she successfully stated claims for unpaid overtime, failure to pay weekly as a manual worker, and failure to provide a wage notice, all under the Labor Law.

Employment DiscriminationHostile WorkplaceHuman Rights LawOvertime PayLabor Law ViolationsWage NoticeManual WorkerAdverse Employment ActionRacial DiscriminationAppellate Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 87 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