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

Claim of Colin v. Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc.

The claimant, a for-hire driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an automobile accident, naming Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc. and Yolette Kernisan as employers. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the claimant was an independent contractor of Express. On appeal, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the finding that the claimant was not an employee of Yolette Kernisan and remitting the matter for further consideration regarding Kernisan's relationship with the claimant, citing an improper control standard. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding of no employment relationship with Express, supported by substantial evidence regarding drivers supplying their own vehicles and expenses, and ability to work for other companies.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentRadio-Dispatched Car ServiceVehicle OwnershipControl TestRemittalAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1997

Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiffs, 25 current or former Metro-North employees, filed two class action lawsuits alleging employment discrimination based on race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various New York State laws against Metro-North Commuter Railroad. They sought class certification for "all African-American employees of defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad from 1983 through 1996." The Court consolidated the two actions but subsequently denied the motion for class certification. The denial was based on the plaintiffs' failure to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The Court found that the plaintiffs' statistical data and sociological opinion were insufficient to establish company-wide discriminatory practices, and individual claims varied significantly, thus lacking typicality for such a broad class.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationClass ActionClass Certification DenialFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 23Commonality RequirementTypicality RequirementStatistical EvidenceSociological OpinionTitle VII
References
19
Case No. ADJ9843286
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

MARQUIS MAYFIELD vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, PSI, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

In *Mayfield v. Federal Express Corporation*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior order. The WCAB rescinded an August 2, 2017 order that had commuted future weekly payments to a lump sum of $6,000. This rescission was based on the defendant's petition for reconsideration, supported by the applicant's counsel, who also requested rescission. The primary reason for rescission was that the full settlement award had already been advanced to the applicant, leaving no remaining funds for commutation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCommutation OrderRescindedFederal Express CorporationSedgwick CMSPermanent Disability AwardEconomic HardshipStatement of Non-OppositionAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sulewski v. Federal Express Corp.

A cargo plane crashed in Malaysia in 1989, resulting in the death of aircraft mechanic Leonard Sulewski. The plaintiff initiated a wrongful death action against Federal Express Corporation, successor to Flying Tiger Line, alleging liability under the Warsaw Convention and common law negligence. The central legal question revolved around whether Sulewski was traveling as a passenger or an on-duty employee at the time of the crash. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, presenting arguments regarding Sulewski's employment status and the applicability of the Convention. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact, concluding that Sulewski was an on-duty employee, not a passenger, and therefore the Warsaw Convention did not apply. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Wrongful DeathWarsaw ConventionSummary JudgmentAirline LiabilityEmployee StatusPassenger StatusInternational TransportationAircraft MechanicScope of EmploymentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2008

Borrero v. American Express Bank Ltd.

Plaintiff Catalina Borrero sued her former employer, American Express Bank, Ltd. (AEB), alleging gender discrimination and retaliation under federal, state, and city laws. AEB moved for summary judgment. The court, presided over by Judge Chin, granted summary judgment in part, dismissing Title VII claims occurring before May 12, 2004, due to statute of limitations. However, summary judgment was denied for remaining Title VII disparate treatment claims, Equal Pay Act (EPA) claims, retaliation claims, and analogous state and city law claims, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding Circle's actions, wage disparity, and constructive discharge. A pretrial conference is scheduled for February 15, 2008.

Gender discriminationRetaliationTitle VIIEqual Pay ActSummary judgmentConstructive dischargeHostile work environmentWage discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allan v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Structural Preservation Systems (SPS), was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while performing structural repairs in a building owned by 500 Lincoln, LLC and leased by DHL Express (USA), Inc. The plaintiff commenced an action against both entities, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln and denied DHL's motions for summary judgment to dismiss various claims against it. On appeal, the court modified the Supreme Court's decision, determining that DHL should have been granted summary judgment dismissing all Labor Law and common-law negligence claims against it, as DHL neither directed nor controlled the work. The court also found that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln should have been denied due to triable issues of fact regarding proximate cause and the availability of adequate safety devices.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationProximate CauseSafe Place to WorkOwner LiabilityLessee Liability
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbanti v. MTA Metro North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff Robert Barbanti, formerly an Electronic Specialist at Norfolk Southern Railroad, claims he was fraudulently induced by MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad (Defendant) to leave his job for a supervisory Signal Inspector position with specific pay. Despite being initially hired as a Signal Inspector, a collective bargaining agreement and a subsequent letter agreement with Local 166 led to him being placed in a lower-paying Electronic Technician role. Barbanti sued for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and negligent/reckless misrepresentation in state court, a case which the Defendant removed to federal court arguing preemption by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The court ruled that Barbanti's state law claims are not preempted by the RLA because their resolution does not require the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, as the rights and obligations at issue exist independently of any such agreement. Consequently, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court and denied Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Railway Labor ActPreemptionFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractNegligent MisrepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputesFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMotion to Remand
References
13
Case No. 866 F.Supp.2d 196
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2011

Howard v. MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Wendell Howard, an African-American locomotive engineer trainee, sued his former employer, MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad, for racial discrimination and harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, following his termination from a training program. Howard alleged discriminatory treatment by his instructors regarding test answers and derogatory remarks, and that his termination for leaving his worksite without proper authorization and insubordination was pretextual. He also claimed other non-African-American trainees were not disciplined similarly. The court granted summary judgment in favor of MTA Metro-North, finding that Howard failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the employer's stated non-discriminatory reasons for termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. Subsequently, Howard filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), citing alleged mistakes, fraud by the defendants, and newly discovered evidence concerning other trainees. The court denied this motion, concluding that Howard's arguments were either rearguments of prior points, lacked clear and convincing evidence of fraud, or the "new evidence" was either available during discovery or not sufficiently convincing to warrant relief.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentPro Se LitigantMotion to Vacate JudgmentRule 60(b)Pretext for DiscriminationLocomotive Engineer Training Program
References
66
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00080 [201 AD3d 1045]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Matter of Fiorelli (Stallion Express, LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns Charlene Fiorelli's claim for unemployment insurance benefits after her delivery courier services for Stallion Express, LLC (SE) concluded. The Department of Labor determined she was an employee, making SE liable for contributions, a decision affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. SE appealed, contending Fiorelli was an independent contractor. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's ruling, finding substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship based on SE's significant control over Fiorelli's work, including mandatory uniforms, background checks, training, scheduled routes, and specific delivery and documentation procedures.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery CourierUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardSubstantial EvidenceControl TestDepartment of LaborLogistics BusinessAppellate Division
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 614 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