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

Cunningham v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

This is a purported class action brought by Kelley Cunningham and Tam-mye Cunningham against Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime wages. EDS moved for summary judgment, asserting the "Air Carrier Exemption" to the FLSA, arguing plaintiffs worked under the direction of American Airlines. The court denied this motion, stating that the "control prong" of the National Mediation Board test focuses on the relationship between the air carrier and the employer (EDS), not just the individual employees, and found genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, the court granted EDS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding FLSA's record-keeping requirements, as there is no private right of action for employees to enforce these provisions. Defendant may renew the motion for summary judgment with further evidence.

FLSA ExemptionsAir Carrier ExemptionRailway Labor Act CoverageOvertime Pay DisputeClass Action LawsuitSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityNMB Control-Function TestTelecommunications Industry
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cutrone v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Plaintiffs Brian Cutrone and Jessica Cervone filed a putative class action against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), alleging violations of New York General Business Law and breaches of implied warranties related to mortgage recording taxes. The core dispute stemmed from the inapplicability of certain tax-saving refinancing agreements (CEMAs) for E-Sign mortgages following a New York court ruling, which allegedly forced plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated individuals to pay a second mortgage tax. MERS removed the case to federal court, citing both federal question and Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) diversity jurisdiction. The District Court, however, found no valid federal question jurisdiction as plaintiffs' claims were state-law based, with any federal issue being a mere defense, and ruled that MERS's removal under CAFA was untimely, as the company had sufficient information from the initial complaint to ascertain removability. Consequently, the motion to remand was granted due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, returning the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County.

Class ActionRemandFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionCAFAFederal QuestionMortgage Electronic Registration SystemsE-Sign MortgageNew York General Business LawMortgage Recording Tax
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scalera v. Electrograph Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff Mary Kay Scalera moved for sanctions, specifically an adverse inference instruction, against Defendants Electrograph Systems, Inc., Kathy Koziol, Rose Ann Gordon, and Man Smith, alleging spoliation of evidence. Scalera claimed that Defendants failed to preserve emails relevant to her disability discrimination lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York Human Rights Law, concerning requests for accommodations after she suffered a fall at work. The Court found that while Defendants breached their duty to preserve certain electronic data, their actions amounted to negligence, not gross negligence. Ultimately, the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the destroyed emails would have been favorable to her case. Consequently, the Court denied the motion for sanctions.

Spoliation of evidenceAdverse inference instructionElectronic data preservationAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawEmployment discriminationReasonable accommodationLitigation holdNegligenceDiscovery sanctions
References
23
Case No. 00 Civ. 4763
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Information Systems, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union Number 3

The plaintiffs, CWA-affiliated electrical contractors led by U.S. Information Systems, Inc., filed an antitrust lawsuit against IBEW Local Union Number 3 and affiliated electrical contractors. Plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy to exclude them from the telecommunications installation market, causing higher prices and lost profits, in violation of the Sherman and Donnelly Acts. The defendants moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' economic expert, Dr. Frederick C. Dunbar, under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, arguing his methods and data were unreliable. Magistrate Judge Francis found that while Dr. Dunbar's qualifications and methodology were largely sound, his analysis concerning liability and causation relied on a biased data sample. Consequently, the court partially granted the defendants' motion, ruling that Dr. Dunbar's testimony based on the skewed data sample for liability and causation is inadmissible. However, his testimony not dependent on this biased data, including his damages calculations, remains admissible, and plaintiffs were instructed to submit a revised expert report if they intend to offer such testimony.

AntitrustMonopoly LeveragingExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardReliability of EvidenceStatistical AnalysisData BiasMarket PowerTelecommunications IndustryElectrical Contracting
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tagare v. NYNEX Network Systems Co.

Plaintiff Neil Tagare filed an action against NYNEX entities and several individuals, alleging discrimination based on color and national origin, retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law, and breach of contract. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including Rule 17(a) regarding real party in interest and ripeness for the contract claim, and the applicability of Title VII and HRL to individual defendants. The court denied dismissal for breach of contract against NYNEX Network Systems Company and upheld HRL claims against individual defendants based on aiding and abetting. The court granted dismissal of Title VII claims against individual defendants and partially granted dismissal of the breach of contract claim against other defendants, while denying the motion for a more definite statement.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationColor DiscriminationRetaliationBreach of ContractMotion to DismissTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureIndividual Liability
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Communications Workers of America District 1

The lawsuit, filed by Cablevision Systems against Communications Workers of America District 1 (CWA) and individual defendants, sought to address alleged harassment, trespass, stalking, disorderly conduct, and tortious interference with business relations. These claims arose from the defendants' purported disruption of two private Cablevision events in May 2013, a shareholder meeting and an investors' conference. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, ruling that a corporate entity like Cablevision Systems cannot be considered a "person" for the purpose of bringing statutory claims under the Penal Law sections cited (harassment, stalking, disorderly conduct). Furthermore, the court found the claims for common-law trespass and tortious interference insufficient due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that individual union members authorized or ratified the alleged unlawful actions. Consequently, the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed entirely.

Labor DisputeUnion HarassmentCorporate EventsTrespassStalkingDisorderly ConductTortious InterferenceMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionPenal Law Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ganthier v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Healthy System

Esther Ganthier sued North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Susan Tobin, GreyStone Staffing, Inc., and Karen Westerlind alleging race and national origin discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy. GreyStone and Westerlind moved to dismiss, while Ganthier cross-moved for leave to amend her complaint. The Court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against GreyStone and Westerlind, finding individuals are not liable under Title VII and GreyStone was not named in the EEOC charge. It also dismissed Section 1981, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy claims due to pleading deficiencies. Consequently, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state and city human rights laws against the dismissed defendants and denied Ganthier's cross-motion to amend as futile, instructing to amend the caption to reflect only North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and Susan Tobin as defendants.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFirst Amendment RetaliationConspiracyMotion to DismissLeave to AmendTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 ClaimsFederal Civil Procedure Rules
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fabijanic v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

Petitioner Nicholas Fabijanic, representing the Engineers Union, sought to compel Sperry Gyroscope Division and Sperry Systems Management Division to arbitrate a grievance concerning a collective bargaining agreement. The dispute arose after Systems' employees, previously working at the Mississippi Test Facility (MTF) on the National Data Buoy Project, were offered employment with Sperry Space Support, another division, which would result in loss of union coverage. The Union contended the agreement should still apply. The court denied the motion, ruling that the employees had voluntarily accepted employment with an autonomous entity not party to the agreement, thus making the grievance non-arbitrable under the existing contract.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceUnion RepresentationEmployee TransferSperry Rand CorporationNational Labor Relations BoardFederal CourtLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawson v. Electronic Data Systems, Inc.

The Supreme Court erred in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs' claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress lacked the necessary element of extreme and outrageous behavior. Furthermore, the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress was appropriately dismissed, as injuries resulting from negligent conduct fall under the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. Consequently, William Lawson's derivative cause of action was also dismissed, leading to the reversal of the original order and the dismissal of the complaint.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyDerivative Cause of ActionAppellate ReviewTort LawComplaint Dismissal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2015

In re Barrier Window Systems, Inc.

Barrier Window Systems, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Barrier liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for its installers. Barrier, which transitioned from installing to selling building products and arranging installations via subcontractors, argued it was not a contractor under the Fair Play Act and that its installers were independent contractors. The Board determined that Barrier continued to engage in construction by arranging installations and that the installers did not meet all three criteria of the Fair Play Act's ABC test for independent contractor status. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, thereby upholding Barrier's liability.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorWorker MisclassificationConstruction Industry Fair Play ActLabor LawABC TestEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative AppealStatutory Presumption
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,261 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