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

In re Troy Publishing Company, Inc.

Troy Publishing Company, Inc., a newspaper publisher, appealed a determination by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The dispute centered on whether its news correspondents and feature columnists should be classified as employees or independent contractors for unemployment insurance contribution purposes. Following an audit, Troy Publishing was assessed additional contributions. An Administrative Law Judge initially ruled them independent contractors, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed this, finding an employer-employee relationship due to Troy Publishing's continued control over their services. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Troy Publishing exercised sufficient control to classify the individuals as employees.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardNewspaper IndustryJournalistsFreelancers
References
4
Case No. ADJ2800461 (VNO 0521396)
Regular
Dec 23, 2008

WON JAE LEE vs. HYOUNG KOOK LEE dba GLENDALE NEWS SERVICES, KOREAN CENTRAL DAILY NEWS, REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves a dispute over whether the applicant was an employee of Korean Central Daily News (Daily) or an independent contractor of Hyoung Kook Lee (HKL) when injured while delivering newspapers. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant was an employee of Daily. The Board found that Daily exercised sufficient control over the applicant's work, including providing the newspapers, customers, and delivery instructions, despite HKL's role as a purported manager.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryNewspaper CarrierEmployee StatusIndependent Business OwnerAgencyControl of WorkEmployer LiabilityUninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundReconsideration Denied
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. Claim 230
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1994

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

This case involves an appeal by Tribune New York Holdings, Inc. (NY Holdings) of an Administrator's denial of its motions to dismiss or for summary judgment in "Claim 230." Claim 230 originated from EEOC discrimination charges filed by employees of the New York Daily News, alleging ongoing racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stemming from a larger class action suit against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union and various publishers. NY Holdings argued that the claimants failed to prosecute diligently under Rule 41(b) and could not substantiate their discrimination claims for summary judgment under Rule 56(c). The District Court, granting deference to the Administrator's findings akin to an arbitrator's decision, affirmed the Administrator's denial of both motions. The court concluded that the Administrator did not abuse his discretion regarding diligent prosecution and that genuine issues of material fact regarding discrimination persisted, thereby precluding summary judgment, while cautioning against further delays.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Affirmative ActionConsent DecreeSummary JudgmentDismissal for Want of ProsecutionRule 41(b) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 56(c) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureEEOC
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York News, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Daily News, a newspaper publisher, sought a preliminary injunction after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and New York City Transit Authority (TA) revoked permits for direct newspaper sales by hawkers in transit stations. The permits were terminated due to threats of disruption and work stoppages from transit unions, who were striking against The Daily News. The court found that the revocation was an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech and of the press, as it was based on fear of illegal union conduct, and deemed the defendants' regulations facially invalid due to lack of clear standards for issuing permits. Consequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction, prohibiting the defendants from unilaterally revoking the permits without court permission.

Freedom of SpeechFreedom of the PressPreliminary InjunctionFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentPublic PropertyPrior RestraintUnfettered DiscretionLabor DisputeUnion Threats
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Holcomb v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal by the Daily News regarding a Workmen's Compensation Board award of death benefits to the widow of John Holcomb. Holcomb, an employee of the Daily News, sustained fatal injuries after falling from a company delivery truck while being transported to work by a fellow employee. The appellants argued that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the employer was not contractually obligated to provide transportation. However, the Board found, and the Appellate Division affirmed, that a common and regular practice of employees transporting each other to work, knowingly acquiesced to by the employer for its own benefit, constituted an implicit assumption of responsibility for transportation-related risks. The court held that a frequent and regular practice of providing transportation, even if not contractually obligated, can render such transportation incidental to employment, making resulting injuries compensable.

Fatal AccidentTransportation to WorkEmployer AcquiescenceCommon PracticeCourse of EmploymentDeath BenefitsWorkers' CompensationImplied ContractGratuitous TransportationRisk Responsibility
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schoenberg v. Shapolsky Publishers

Plaintiff Harris O. Schoenberg sued Steimatzky Publishing of North America, Inc., Shapolsky Publishers, and Ian Shapolsky for copyright infringement and breach of contract. Defendants' attorney, Samuel A. Abady, repeatedly failed to comply with discovery requests and a court order compelling document production by June 26, 1991. Despite subsequent attempts by plaintiff's counsel and a denied writ of mandamus sought by Abady, adequate discovery was not provided until September 4, 1991, and even then, it was found deficient. The court held Mr. Abady in contempt of its June 19, 1991 order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for intentional disregard of court orders and dilatory tactics. Plaintiff was awarded attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in obtaining discovery. A further hearing is scheduled to determine if the defendants are also responsible for the non-compliance, to apportion the sanctions, and to decide on a coercive sanction for Mr. Abady's continued failure to comply.

Discovery SanctionsContempt of CourtAttorney MisconductFailure to Produce DocumentsCopyright InfringementBreach of Contract LitigationDilatory TacticsAttorney Fees AwardFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial Discretion
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. NEWSPAPER AND MAIL DELIVERERS'UNION

This opinion addresses an appeal within the long-standing civil rights case initiated in 1973 by a class of private plaintiffs and the EEOC against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union and numerous publishers for discriminatory practices. The original suit resulted in a 1974 Consent Decree establishing an affirmative action program for newspaper deliverers. The current matter involves an appeal by Magazine Distributors, Inc. (MDI) and MDI Distributors, Limited Partnership, challenging a determination by court-appointed Administrator William S. Ellis. The Administrator had asserted jurisdiction over Claim 274, filed by the NMDU, which alleged that MDI and the Partnership violated the Consent Decree by refusing to hire former Imperial News Co. employees represented by the NMDU after MDI acquired Imperial's assets. MDI argued the Administrator lacked jurisdiction, contending the claim was purely about union discrimination and that prior NLRB and Bankruptcy Court decisions precluded the Administrator's review. The Court affirmed the Administrator's jurisdiction, holding that his broad authority under the Settlement Agreement extends to investigating whether an asset sale was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Consent Decree, an issue not previously litigated in other forums. The matter is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Employment DiscriminationAffirmative ActionConsent Decree EnforcementSuccessor LiabilityUnion DiscriminationJurisdiction DisputeAdministrator ReviewAsset Sale CircumventionLabor LawTitle VII
References
10
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05238 [173 AD3d 1571]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2019

Matter of Kriplin (Community Newspaper Group LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Jonathan Kriplin, a newspaper carrier for Community Newspaper Group LLC (now Community First Holdings, Inc. - CFHI), applied for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing deliveries. The Department of Labor and an Administrative Law Judge determined that Kriplin and other carriers were employees, making CFHI liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld these findings. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, citing substantial evidence of an employment relationship, consistent with prior cases involving CFHI and similar workers. The court dismissed CFHI's arguments regarding independent contractor status and First Amendment rights.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorNewspaper CarriersAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawFirst Amendment Rights
References
4
Case No. 73 Civ. 3058
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

This opinion and order addresses a long-standing civil rights action concerning alleged discrimination against minorities in the newspaper delivery industry by the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union (NMDU) and various publishers. The court reviews and affirms a determination by Administrator William S. Ellis regarding “Claim 186,” which involved violations of a 1974 Consent Decree, specifically concerning hiring procedures for Group III shapers at The New York Times. The Administrator found that the Times and NMDU violated the Settlement Agreement by unilaterally deviating from a 3/2 minority hiring ratio, implementing discriminatory application procedures, and engaging in intentional racial discrimination in offlist hiring and Group III list placement. The court also affirms the Administrator's conclusions that certain non-minority intervenors lacked standing and that back pay and attorneys' fees are appropriate remedies under the Settlement Agreement, which is deemed compliant with Title VII. The case is remanded to the Administrator for further evidentiary hearings to determine specific back pay amounts and the relative liability of The Times and the NMDU.

Employment DiscriminationAffirmative ActionConsent DecreeTitle VIIRacial DiscriminationHiring PracticesUnion PracticesAdministrator ReviewBack PayAttorneys' Fees
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 257 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