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

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. New York City Office of Collective Bargaining

This case concerns an appeal regarding the New York City Fire Department's "zero tolerance" policy, which mandates automatic termination for EMS employees who fail or refuse drug tests. Unions representing these employees argued that this policy should be subject to mandatory collective bargaining. The New York City Board of Collective Bargaining and a lower court ruled against the unions, asserting that the policy falls under management's disciplinary rights. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that disciplinary actions for EMS personnel are the sole province of the Fire Commissioner under the New York City Charter, and that deterring illegal drug use by EMS workers is critical to public safety and the FDNY's core mission.

Public SafetyEmergency Medical Services (EMS)Drug Testing PolicyZero ToleranceCollective BargainingMandatory BargainingNew York City Fire Department (FDNY)Fire CommissionerDisciplinary AuthorityNew York City Charter
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quill v. Eisenhower

The Transport Workers Union of America moved to compel Columbia University to bargain collectively, asserting an affirmative duty based on Article I, Section 17 of the New York State Constitution, which guarantees employees the right to organize and bargain collectively. The court denied the motion, referencing prior precedent, specifically Matter of Columbia Univ. v. Herzog. This precedent established that the New York State Labor Relations Board lacked authority to mandate collective bargaining for educational institutions due to an explicit exemption in Section 715 of the New York State Labor Relations Act. The court clarified that the constitutional provision serves as a protective measure for employee rights, rather than imposing a universal affirmative duty to bargain on all employers, particularly those exempted from the Labor Law's collective bargaining provisions.

Collective BargainingLabor LawConstitutional LawState ConstitutionEmployer DutyLabor Relations ActEducational InstitutionsCharitable OrganizationsEmployee RightsUnion Recognition
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25014
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2025

New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd. v. New York City Off. of Collective Bargaining

The New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) initiated a special proceeding against the New York City Office of Collective Bargaining (OCB) and related boards. PERB alleged that OCB's ongoing implementation of its contract-bar rule, which restricts post-expiration-of-contract decertification, was not substantially equivalent to the state's Taylor Law. OCB moved to dismiss the petition as untimely. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion to dismiss PERB's declaratory judgment claim, finding it either a continuing violation or subject to a six-year statute of limitations that was not yet expired. However, the court dismissed PERB's accompanying Article 78 cause of action as untimely. Additionally, motions to intervene by several nonparties were denied, but their requests to appear as amici curiae were granted.

Public Employment Relations BoardCollective BargainingTaylor LawCivil Service LawDeclaratory JudgmentStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineContract Bar RuleDecertification PetitionNew York City Office of Collective Bargaining
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perero v. Hyatt Corp.

B-List banquet workers at Grand Hyatt New York sued Hyatt Corporation and two unions, alleging violations of labor laws, age discrimination, and breach of the duty of fair representation. The dispute arose from a change in staffing policy that prioritized A-List workers for higher-paying "doubles" and "splits" jobs, which plaintiffs contended violated their collective bargaining agreement and a 1998 arbitration award. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the entire complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead both a breach of the collective bargaining agreement by the employer and a breach of the duty of fair representation by the unions.

Labor LawUnion RightsEmployment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationCollective BargainingMotion PracticeFederal CourtStatutory InterpretationRule 12(c) MotionHybrid Claim
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Simmons Co.

Plaintiffs Albert and Calvin Williams, former employees of Simmons Company and members of the United Steelworkers of America union, filed a hybrid lawsuit against Simmons for breach of their collective bargaining agreement and against the Union for breach of the duty of fair representation. They also sued Simmons for race and age discrimination. The dispute arose after Simmons implemented a new Pay Plus Bonus Program, leading to disciplinary actions and terminations for the Plaintiffs due to perceived drops in efficiency. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, finding undue delay and futility. The Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants on all claims, concluding that the Union did not breach its duty of fair representation, Simmons did not breach the collective bargaining agreement, and Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for race and age discrimination or provide sufficient evidence of pretext.

Labor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationAge DiscriminationTitle VIIADEANorthern District of TexasFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reese v. Donahoe

Iantha Reese, a former employee of the United States Postal Service, sued her employer and her union, the American Postal Workers’ Union (APWU), alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement by the Postal Service and breach of duty of fair representation by the APWU. Reese's employment was terminated due to alleged shortages at her Point of Sale computer and violation of Postal Service policy regarding money orders. The APWU grieved her suspension and termination, leading to an arbitration where the arbitrator upheld the Postal Service's decision. Reese subsequently filed this hybrid action, asserting that the APWU failed to adequately represent her during the grievance process, citing issues such as not submitting a sworn statement or obtaining a crucial routing slip. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that Reese failed to establish that the APWU's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, thus dismissing both the duty of fair representation claim and the interdependent breach of collective bargaining agreement claim.

Hybrid claimfair representationcollective bargaining agreementwrongful terminationarbitration awardmotion to dismisssummary judgmentPostal Serviceunion dutyemployee rights
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Japan Air Lines Co. v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers

Japan Air Lines Company, Ltd. (JAL) initiated this action against the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (IAM), its collective bargaining representative, seeking to enjoin a potential strike. JAL contended that the IAM's insistence on changes to the 'Scope' clause, which aimed to require JAL to employ its own personnel for work historically subcontracted, constituted a non-bargainable demand and violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) duty to bargain in good faith. The court determined that the 'Scope' proposal was not a mandatory subject of bargaining as it pertained to fundamental management decisions and only indirectly impacted employee job security. Despite JAL's refusal to bargain on this specific issue, the court found that the IAM's overall conduct did not demonstrate a lack of sincere effort to reach an agreement on other issues. Consequently, JAL's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, and the previously issued temporary restraining order was dissolved.

Collective BargainingScope ClauseSubcontractingInjunctionRailway Labor ActMandatory BargainingManagerial PrerogativeJob SecurityUnion DisputeStrike Action
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,955 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