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

Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Crisanti

This Supreme Court order unanimously affirmed a prior decision that denied a petition to vacate an arbitration award. The dispute involved a terminated arbitrageur's entitlement to a bonus. The court found no manifest disregard of the law by the arbitration panel, noting that the legal principles were not well-defined. It upheld the arbitrators' finding of an implied right to a bonus based on the parties' dealings and industry practice. The court also determined that the refusal to hear a proposed witness was not fundamentally unfair as the testimony would have been cumulative, and an alleged misrepresentation by respondent's attorney did not constitute fraud. Finally, the award was found not to offend public policy.

Arbitration AwardBonus EntitlementEmployment DisputeContract InterpretationArbitrageurJudicial ReviewManifest Disregard of LawWitness TestimonyFraud AllegationPublic Policy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1983

Slatt v. Slatt

This case concerns a dispute between a divorced couple over a separation agreement from 1969. The plaintiff wife sought cost-of-living increases on a yearly bonus, in addition to monthly support payments. While cost-of-living increases were applied to monthly payments, they were not applied to the bonus for over a decade. The defendant husband conceded some miscalculations on monthly payments but argued the bonus was not subject to such increases, citing a six-year Statute of Limitations. The trial court initially ruled for the plaintiff on the bonus, but this dissenting opinion argues that the parties' consistent conduct over many years indicated the cost-of-living index did not apply to the bonus, thus advocating for a modification of the judgment.

separation agreementcost-of-living adjustmentspousal supportcontract interpretationstatute of limitationsmarital propertyappellate reviewdissenting opinionbonus paymentsNew York courts
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Truelove v. Northeast Capital & Advisory, Inc.

Plaintiff William B. Truelove, Jr. sued his former employer, Northeast Capital & Advisory, Inc., under Labor Law article 6, seeking unpaid bonus installments. Truelove was awarded a bonus payable quarterly, but after his resignation, the employer ceased payments, citing a condition of continued employment. The Court examined whether the bonus constituted "wages" under Labor Law § 190 (1). It concluded that the bonus, contingent on firm financial success and employer discretion rather than personal productivity, did not meet the statutory definition of wages. Consequently, the employer's requirement of continued employment for bonus payments was upheld, and the Appellate Division's affirmation of the lower court's decision was affirmed.

Bonus CompensationWage DisputeLabor Law Article 6Employee ResignationContractual RightDiscretionary BonusStatutory InterpretationIncentive CompensationContinued Employment ConditionProfit Sharing
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caldwell v. Toia

This CPLR article 78 proceeding involves an appeal from a judgment that reversed a determination by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services. The appellant, a public assistance recipient, was initially denied a "Support Incentive Bonus" despite having an existing assignment of support rights. The court below held she was entitled to the bonus from February 1, 1976. The appellate court found the appellant's 1973 support assignment, while not as comprehensive as the federal requirement, functioned similarly and served the legislative purposes of the bonus program. Given the practical similarity of assignments and the equities, the judgment was modified to direct the Chautauqua County Department of Social Services to pay the appellant the bonus from July 1, 1975, to May 1, 1976, plus interest.

Support Incentive BonusPublic AssistanceAid to Dependent ChildrenSupport OrdersAssignment of RightsSocial Services LawCPLR Article 78Welfare RecipientsChautauqua CountyAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Hawker Beechcraft, Inc.

The Debtors sought court approval for their Key Employee Incentive Plan (KEIP), designed to provide bonuses to eight senior leadership team members (insiders). While a related Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP) was approved, the Court reserved decision on the KEIP. The plan offered substantial bonuses based on the consummation of either a Standalone Plan or a Third-Party Transaction, with minimum targets often aligning with business plan projections. The Court ultimately denied the KEIP, concluding that its low thresholds for bonus attainment made it function as a disguised retention plan rather than a true incentive program. This was found to violate the rigorous standards for insider retention under Section 503(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, which aims to prevent executives from receiving bonuses merely for remaining with a company during bankruptcy. The Debtors failed to demonstrate that the plan's goals were challenging enough to qualify it as a legitimate incentive scheme.

BankruptcyKEIPKERPInsider CompensationRetention PlanIncentive PlanSection 503(c)(1)Chapter 11Corporate RestructuringCreditors' Rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re American Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc.

Gerald Riggs and Rick Jepson, former senior executives of AMPAM Riggs, an operating subsidiary of American Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc. (a Chapter 11 debtor), applied for payment of administrative expenses claims, specifically year-end bonuses based on exceeding EBITDA targets. They argued entitlement under a pre-petition incentive plan and that the payments constituted ordinary course business expenses, which a prior court order allegedly authorized. The Plan Agent and the Official Creditors' Committee objected, contending that Riggs and Jepson were ineligible as they had resigned in April 2004 before bonus payments, and that AMPAM Riggs had not actually met its 2003 EBITDA target once certain late-reported insurance claims were properly factored in. The court found that after adjusting the 2003 EBITDA for these claims, the target was not met, meaning no 15% bonus was owed. Additionally, the court ruled that even if the bonuses were earned, they did not qualify as administrative expenses under Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(1)(A) because they were not attributable to services rendered post-petition and did not confer a discernible benefit to the estate, especially since the applicants had voluntarily resigned. The application for payment of administrative expense claims was therefore denied.

BankruptcyAdministrative ClaimIncentive Bonus PlanEBITDA AdjustmentPost-Petition ServicesChapter 11 ReorganizationFiduciary DutyCreditors' CommitteeVoluntary ResignationBenefit to Estate
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Blaine v. Unum Life Insurance

The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that an $88,000 bonus, part of an annual bonus of $182,394.98 from MCI Telecommunications Corporation, should be included in the claimant’s average weekly wage for benefit calculation under Workers’ Compensation Law § 357.2 (a). However, the decision found that the Board erred by including only a portion of the 'wages paid', asserting that the actual bonus amount of $182,394.98 should be utilized, as wages are calculated based on actual work done and time spent. The decision was affirmed.

Workers' Compensationbonus calculationaverage weekly wagewage definitionemployer practicesbenefits calculationstatutory interpretationaffirmancedissentMCI Telecommunications Corporation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Esmilla v. Cosmopolitan Club

Plaintiff Julia Esmilla sued her former employer, The Cosmopolitan Club, alleging retaliatory termination for complaining about labor law violations concerning the "Pegasus Fund" and failure to pay a guaranteed annual bonus. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting lack of a colorable labor law violation and arguing that the bonus was not an 'earned wage.' The Court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the retaliation claim related to a proposed budget violation due to its prospective nature. However, the motion was denied for other retaliation claims, breach of contract regarding the guaranteed bonus, and failure to pay earned wages, citing triable issues of fact.

Employment RetaliationNew York Labor LawWage DisputesGuaranteed BonusSummary JudgmentPegasus FundService ChargesGratuitiesBreach of ContractStatute of Frauds
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2001

Tappe v. Alliance Capital Management L.P.

Wayne Tappe, a 38-year-old white male, was terminated from his position at Alliance Capital Management on the day year-end bonuses were scheduled. Tappe subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging race, sex, and age discrimination under federal, state, and city laws, alongside claims for unpaid bonuses and severance pay. Alliance moved to dismiss several of these claims. The court granted dismissal of the discrimination claims, citing insufficient pleading particularity, but allowed Tappe leave to amend his complaint. Additionally, the court dismissed Tappe's state law severance claims, finding them preempted by ERISA, but denied the motion to dismiss his quantum meruit claim regarding the unpaid bonus.

Employment LawDiscriminationWrongful TerminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationERISASeverance PayUnpaid WagesQuantum Meruit
References
39
Case No. 2015-01-0147
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2016

Marshall, Tara v. Mueller Company

The employee, Tara Marshall, appealed the trial court's denial of increased permanent partial disability benefits following a court-approved settlement agreement. The core issue was whether her wages at the end of the compensation period, which excluded a temporary 'summer hours' bonus present at the time of injury, entitled her to increased benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(B). The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the term 'wages' should be interpreted consistent with pre-reform law, meaning temporary bonuses or shift differentials due to economic conditions affecting all employees do not automatically trigger increased benefits. The Board found the reduction in pay was not injury-related but rather the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement's bonus, and her base hourly wage was actually higher.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage ReductionSummer Hours BonusCollective Bargaining AgreementStatutory InterpretationEconomic ConditionsAppellate ReviewTennessee LawEmployment Benefits
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 76 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