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

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suffolk County Ass'n of Municipal Employees, Inc. v. County of Suffolk

The plaintiff, Suffolk County Association of Municipal Employees, Inc., appealed an order dismissing its complaint against Suffolk County. The Union sought to permanently enjoin the County from imposing mandatory furloughs and discharging employees under a collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied a preliminary injunction. The appellate court modified the order, finding that the Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction. However, it affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, stating that loss of employment does not constitute irreparable harm as affected workers are entitled to reinstatement and back pay if they prevail.

Public EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementMandatory FurloughsEmployee DischargeSubject Matter JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmBudget DeficitPersonnel ReductionsAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guippone v. Bh S & B Holdings LLC

The court addresses a class action lawsuit under the WARN Act, where terminated employees sued the purchaser of their former employer, Steve & Barry's, for not providing 60 days' notice before a mass layoff. Defendants argued employees were 'part-time' because they worked for the new owner for less than six months. The court rejected this, stating that employment periods with both seller and purchaser should be aggregated for WARN Act purposes. However, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice, citing the complaint's deficient pleading of facts and instructing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within twenty days.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingEmployment LossAsset PurchaseSuccessor LiabilityPart-Time EmployeesPleading StandardsMotion to DismissBankruptcy
References
15
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02370 [237 AD3d 1139]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2025

Whitfield v. Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Assn.

The plaintiff, John "Divine G" Whitfield, doing business as Divine G Entertainment, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss his amended complaint. Whitfield had sued Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (LEEBA) and its members for fraud and unjust enrichment, alleging inadequate payment for website and paralegal services. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Whitfield failed to adequately allege injury for fraud and that civil conspiracy claims stand or fall with the underlying tort. The court also determined that defendants were not unjustly enriched and that the plaintiff failed to establish an employer-employee relationship necessary for Labor Law and FLSA claims. Additionally, claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress were dismissed for failing to meet rigorous standards, and piercing the corporate veil was not adequately pleaded.

FraudUnjust EnrichmentEmployment RelationshipQuantum MeruitLabor LawFLSAEmotional DistressCorporate VeilPiercing Corporate VeilPleading Sufficiency
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cicatello v. Brewery Workers Pension Fund

This case addresses an action brought by employees and retired employees of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (Teamsters Fund) seeking to enjoin the merger of the Teamsters Fund with the Brewery Workers Pension Fund. Plaintiffs alleged multiple violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), including insufficient employee notification of the proposed merger, potential reduction in benefits, and failure to meet minimum funding standards. Chief Judge Curtin of the federal court determined that ERISA provisions cited by plaintiffs were either inapplicable to multiemployer plans at the time or had established mechanisms to address the concerns. The court also found the claim regarding the merger not being in the best interests of Teamsters Fund participants to be barred by res judicata due to prior state court decisions. Consequently, the court denied the request for preliminary injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Pension FundsFund MergerPreliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentRes JudicataMulti-employer PlansFiduciary DutyMinimum Funding StandardsTax Qualification
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arcadi v. Nestle Foods Corp.

This class action, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), involved employees and former employees of Nestle Foods Corporation who sought overtime compensation for time spent changing into and out of mandatory uniforms. The defendant, Nestle, moved for summary judgment, arguing that this time was non-compensable based on an established "custom or practice" under their collective bargaining agreement, as permitted by FLSA § 203(o). Plaintiffs contended they never explicitly agreed to forgo such compensation. The court examined prior case law on Section 203(o) and found compelling similarities, noting that the employees effectively bargained away their right to compensation for clothes-changing time in exchange for other concessions. Consequently, the court granted Nestle's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Collective Bargaining AgreementOvertime CompensationUniform PolicyClothes-Changing TimeSummary JudgmentClass Action LawsuitCustom or PracticeLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 of AFL-CIO

The case involves two plaintiffs, Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge, who were terminated from their union organizer and business agent positions by Local 100 and HEREIU in 1992. They filed age discrimination complaints, alleging derogatory comments and a desire for 'young blood.' The defendants argued the terminations were for cause due to an FBI investigation into corruption, bribery, and RICO violations within the union, implicating the plaintiffs. After a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the Appellate Division reversed, finding defendants presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination that plaintiffs failed to prove were pretextual. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict.

Age DiscriminationWrongful TerminationLabor LawUnion CorruptionRICO ViolationsPretextPrima Facie CaseBurden of ProofNew York CourtsAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Official Employment-Related Issues Committee (In Re Enron Corp.)

On February 6, 2003, 176 former Enron employees (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, seeking a court declaration that bonuses received from Enron were valid and non-avoidable. The Official Employment-Related Issues Committee of Enron Corp. (Employee Committee) responded on March 28, 2003, with a Motion to Dismiss the declaratory judgment action. The Court found the Complaint to be an improper use of the Declaratory Judgment Act, as all potential liability had already accrued from past transactions, and plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or risk of increased liability. Consequently, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss, thereby dismissing the Plaintiffs' Complaint and the Adversary Proceeding.

Declaratory Judgment ActMotion to DismissBankruptcy CodeBankruptcy CourtEnronEmployee BonusesAvoidable TransfersJurisdictionFirst Filed RuleVenue
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caruso v. Civilian Complaint Review Board

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by police officers in the City of New York to permanently enjoin the enforcement of section 440 of the New York City Charter, which established a new Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). Petitioners argued that section 440 failed to protect their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated their contractual rights. The court held that use immunity automatically attaches by operation of law when public employees are compelled to testify under threat of dismissal, thereby safeguarding their Fifth Amendment rights without explicit statutory authorization. It further determined that the City Charter constituted a 'change in the law,' preventing any impairment of contractual rights. Consequently, the court denied injunctive relief and dismissed the petition.

Self-incriminationUse immunityFifth AmendmentCPLR Article 78Police misconductCivilian oversightConstitutional lawDue processCollective bargainingNew York City Charter
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miroe v. Miroe

This case involves appeals by a defendant third-party plaintiff and a third-party defendant from a Supreme Court order denying their motions for summary judgment. The appellate court reversed the order, granting both motions and dismissing the initial complaint and the third-party complaint. The court held that an employee who has received workers' compensation benefits is barred from suing a fellow employee acting within the scope of employment, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]. As the defendant was acting within the scope of employment, the plaintiffs' action was barred. Additionally, the third-party action was dismissed because the injured plaintiff did not suffer a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, rendering the third-party action for contribution and indemnification academic.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationFellow Employee ImmunityScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtGrave InjuryContributionIndemnificationNew York Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 7,241 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