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

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
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

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Ass'n of Publishers' Employees, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co.

Plaintiffs, the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees, Inc. (IAPE) and ten Canadian employees, sued defendant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The plaintiffs claimed that Dow Jones violated its fiduciary obligations by changing the Profit-Sharing Retirement Plan's benefit allocation formula, which resulted in reduced benefits for Canadian employees due to currency conversion. Dow Jones argued it was not a fiduciary for this specific act or that the action was not a breach, asserting the right to amend plan contributions. The court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, found that Dow Jones's fiduciary duties under ERISA did not extend to the method of calculating employer contributions or modifying non-accrued benefits. The court concluded that both the Plan provisions and ERISA allowed prospective changes in contributions by the employer, and therefore, Dow Jones had not breached any fiduciary duty. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

ERISAFiduciary DutyProfit-Sharing PlanBenefit AllocationSummary JudgmentNon-Accrued BenefitsPlan AmendmentEmployer ContributionsCanadian EmployeesDistrict Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Independent School District v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local Union No. 1442

This case, heard by Justice YOUNG of the Texas Civil Appeals, involved several labor unions and individual public employees challenging the Dallas Public School District and its Superintendent, Dr. W. T. White. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Section 6, Article 5154c, V.A.C.S., concerning the right of public employees to present grievances through non-striking representatives. The District had refused to acknowledge the unions' capacity to act as such representatives. The trial court ruled in favor of the employees and unions, affirming their right to present grievances through their chosen representatives, provided they did not claim the right to strike. The appellate court upheld this decision, overruling the appellants' arguments against the scope of union representation for grievances.

Right to Work LawPublic EmployeesLabor UnionsGrievance ProceduresDeclaratory Judgment ActCollective BargainingRight to StrikeStatutory InterpretationClass ActionAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hand v. Stevens Transport, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan

Jean and Howard Hand appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment which dismissed their claims for health care benefits against the Stevens Transport, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan as time-barred. The Hands argued that the Plan's failure to comply with ERISA's notification requirements should invalidate or toll the contractual limitations period. The appellate court found that while the Plan's notice was non-compliant, it still provided reasonable notice of partial denial, and the Hands failed to exercise due diligence. The court concluded that the twenty-seven month contractual limitations period was reasonable and was not tolled by the Plan's ERISA non-compliance or the pursuit of administrative remedies. Therefore, the Hands' claims were barred, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

ERISAHealth Insurance BenefitsContractual Limitations PeriodStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDenial of BenefitsEquitable TollingAdministrative RemediesNotice RequirementsEmployee Benefit Plan
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp. & Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 153

This case concerns an appeal by Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 153, against Wells Fargo, seeking to compel arbitration after Wells Fargo discharged an employee. The dispute arose when Wells Fargo refused arbitration, citing the union's alleged non-compliance with preliminary grievance steps, which Special Term deemed a condition precedent to arbitration. The appellate court reversed this decision. It clarified that in labor-management agreements, unlike commercial arbitrations, compliance with grievance procedures constitutes procedural arbitrability, a matter for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide. Citing Federal law and the specific language of the collective bargaining agreement, the court denied Wells Fargo's request for a permanent stay and granted the union's motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementProcedural ArbitrabilityConditions PrecedentFederal LawGrievance ProcedureStay of ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationUnion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Memorial Hermann Health System v. Coastal Drilling Co., LLC Employee Benefit Trust

Plaintiff Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS) sued Coastal Drilling for breach of contract and recovery of benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). MHHS claimed Coastal Drilling breached a contract to pay for healthcare services at PPOplus Contracted Rates. The Court determined that MHHS's breach of contract claim was not preempted by ERISA but could not be enforced because MHHS was a non-party to the Network Access Agreement and Coastal Drilling, also a non-party, had no direct obligation under it. Regarding the ERISA claim, the Court found that Coastal Drilling, as the plan administrator, had discretionary authority to determine benefits based on the Plan's Applicable Plan Limits (APL). The Court found substantial evidence supporting Coastal Drilling's benefits determination and no evidence of bias affecting the decision, despite a structural conflict of interest. Consequently, the Court granted Coastal Drilling's motion for summary judgment and dismissed MHHS's claims with prejudice.

ERISASummary JudgmentBreach of ContractPlan AdministratorBenefits DenialHealthcare ProviderThird-Party BeneficiaryERISA PreemptionTexas LawFiduciary Duty
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agway, Inc. Employees' 401(K) Thrift Investment Plan v. Magnuson

This case involves an action brought by Agway, Inc. Employees’ 401(k) Thrift Investment Plan and State Street Bank & Trust Company under ERISA, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties by various parties concerning the Agway pension plan. Defendant Mellon Trust of New England, N.A., a former fiduciary, sought court approval for a tentative settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, which included a bar order preventing non-settling defendants from asserting indemnity or contribution claims against Mellon Trust. The non-settling defendants, including the Committee Defendants, Director Defendants, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, opposed the bar order, arguing it was overbroad. Magistrate Judge Peebles found the proposed bar order overreaches as it purports to restrict contribution and indemnity claims in actions brought by parties other than the plaintiffs, such as the Department of Labor. Consequently, the court denied Mellon Trust's application for settlement approval without prejudice, conditioning approval on either restricting the bar order's scope to the current action or securing the Secretary of Labor's agreement to the judgment credit reduction in any future action.

ERISAFiduciary Duty BreachPension PlanSettlement AgreementBar OrderContribution ClaimsIndemnity ClaimsPartial JudgmentNon-Settling DefendantsProportionate Fault
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Houston, Annise D. Parker, Kelly Dowe, Ronald C.Green, Brenda Stardig, Jerry Davis, Ellen Cohen, Dwight Boykins, Dave Martin, Richard Nguyen, Oliver Pennington, Ed Gonzalez, Robert Gallegos, Mike Laster, Larry Green, Stephen Costello v. Houston Municipal Employee Pension System

Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) sued the City of Houston and its officials, seeking writs of mandamus to compel compliance with Article 6243h regarding employee information and pension funding, and with the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA). The trial court denied the City appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction, leading to this appeal. The appellate court reversed and rendered judgment on HMEPS's mandamus claims against the City related to Article 6243h non-compliance. It also reversed and remanded claims against City officials for pension funding failures, instructing HMEPS to properly plead ultra vires claims. The court affirmed the denial of the plea for claims against City officials regarding Article 6243h information disclosure and for TPIA claims against the City. However, TPIA claims against individual defendants (other than the City or its public-information officer) were dismissed. The court upheld HMEPS's standing to bring the suit.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires DoctrineMandamus ReliefPension SystemsPublic Information ActMinisterial DutyPlea to the JurisdictionContractual ObligationsStatutory InterpretationSovereign Immunity
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 12,232 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