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

LIN Television Corp. v. National Ass'n of Broadcast Employees & Technicians—Communications Workers

Plaintiff LIN Television Corporation sought to vacate a labor arbitration award that reinstated employee Timothy Flynn after his termination for making threats. Defendants, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—Communications Workers of America, counter-claimed to enforce the award. The arbitration found no "just cause" for termination, converting it to a suspension and mandating a positive psychiatric evaluation for Flynn's return. The U.S. District Court, reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, confirmed the arbitration award. The court ruled that the award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and did not violate public policy regarding workplace safety, thereby denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendants' motion.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardVacaturEnforcementWorkplace SafetyCollective Bargaining AgreementJust CauseEmployee TerminationMental Health EvaluationFederal Court Review
References
26
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05744 [174 AD3d 1206]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME AFL-CIO v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

The case involves Jarred Sansky, a probationary employee, terminated from his position as Cadet Leader 1 by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. Petitioners, including Sansky and the Civil Service Employees Association, challenged the termination under CPLR article 78, arguing Sansky had completed his probationary term and was dismissed in bad faith or retaliation for reporting neglect. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding Sansky was still probationary and petitioners failed to prove bad faith or retaliation. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the dismissal, holding that Sansky's temporary service in a higher position did not automatically count towards his probationary period and that allegations of bad faith or retaliation were unsupported by evidence. Therefore, Sansky, as a probationary employee, was not entitled to a pretermination hearing.

probationary employmentterminationCPLR article 78bad faith dismissalretaliationcivil service lawtemporary appointmentprovisional appointmentNew York State Office of Children and Family ServicesCadet Leader
References
10
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

In Re New York Trap Rock Corp.

The Chapter 11 debtors moved to reject and/or terminate their Executive Medical Plan (EMP), arguing that 11 U.S.C. § 1114 did not apply because the EMP was not a "plan" under the statute and the respondents were not "retired employees." Two former executives, Jerome Bennett and Robert W. Hutton, objected, asserting their rights under §§ 1114 and 1129(a)(13) to continue benefits. The court found that the EMP constituted a "plan, fund, or program" as defined by ERISA, and that the respondents were "retired employees" under § 1114, irrespective of their former executive roles or control. There was no evidence to disqualify them based on the gross income exception under § 1114(l). Consequently, the court denied the debtors' motion, requiring them to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 1114 for any termination or modification of benefits.

BankruptcyRetiree BenefitsExecutive Medical PlanERISAEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanChapter 11Debtor in PossessionContract RejectionEmployee Benefits11 U.S.C. § 1114
References
10
Case No. 13-05-055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

Scott Cerre v. Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP

Scott Cerre, an employee of Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP, was injured on the job and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He was later terminated under Odfjell's absence-control policy after taking a six-month leave of absence. Cerre sued Odfjell, alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination in violation of chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Odfjell. On appeal, Cerre contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on both his discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Odfjell successfully negated elements of the discrimination claim and that Cerre's termination was due to a uniformly enforced absence-control policy, not retaliation.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewCausal ConnectionHarassment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Claim of Rainone v. 36th Street Terminal Corp.

This case is an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed August 4, 1993, which found an employer-employee relationship between the decedent and Universal Maritime Service Corporation, in addition to 36th Street Terminal Corporation. The decedent, a security guard for 36th Street, was killed by a forklift operated by a Universal employee. The Board had ruled that 36th Street was the general employer and Universal was the special employer. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence supporting the employment relationship with Universal, considering factors such as Universal's ownership of 36th Street, 36th Street's exclusive work for Universal, and Universal's provision of work equipment and assignments to 36th Street employees.

employer-employee relationshipspecial employergeneral employerworkers' compensationfatal accidentsecurity guardforklift accidentsubstantial evidence
References
0
Case No. 02-14-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2014

William D. Layton v. City of Fort Worth, City of Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund, and Board of City of Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund

Appellant William D. Layton sued the City of Fort Worth and its retirement entities after his disability benefits were terminated. The trial court granted the defendants' plea to the jurisdiction, which Layton appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that no statute provided a right to judicial review of the Board’s order terminating disability benefits. Furthermore, Layton had no vested property right in the benefits, and his due course of law claim seeking reinstatement of benefits would improperly control the Board's discretionary decision-making, thus implicating governmental immunity.

Disability BenefitsGovernmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionJudicial ReviewVested Property RightsDue Course of LawMunicipal Retirement SystemAdministrative OrderDiscretionary AuthorityTexas Constitution
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Local 2507 of District Council 37 of the American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees

This case addresses an application by emergency medical service employees and their union (defendants) seeking reinstatement after termination and rescission of probationary period extensions by the Health and Hospitals Corporation (plaintiffs). The terminations and extensions stemmed from an alleged "sickout" on March 4, 1988. The court examined whether provisional and probationary employees, lacking full civil service protections, have a right to a hearing when terminated, particularly if "liberty interests" are affected by public stigmatization due to alleged Taylor Law violations. Citing constitutional concerns regarding reputation and future employment, the court directed the Health and Hospitals Corporation to grant hearings to all affected provisional and probationary employees to ascertain valid reasons for their absence. Furthermore, if a valid reason is established for a probationary employee, the 60-day extension of their probationary period must be rescinded, and the plaintiffs' cross-motion to dismiss counterclaims was denied.

Provisional EmployeesProbationary EmployeesEmployee TerminationReinstatement RightsTaylor LawCivil Service LawDue ProcessLiberty InterestStigmatizationPublic Employment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aronson v. New York City Employees Retirement System

Esther Aronson, a former New York City social worker, sued the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS) for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Aronson sought reinstatement in NYCERS, arguing that her pension rights were unlawfully terminated without due process when she was unable to transfer pension plans in May 1988, five years after her dismissal from city service in 1983. NYCERS moved for dismissal, asserting a statute of limitations defense. The court converted the motion to summary judgment and ruled in favor of NYCERS, concluding that Aronson's cause of action accrued on June 1, 1983, the date of her termination, as she knew or should have known of the impact on her pension rights at that time. Consequently, her claims were dismissed as time-barred.

Pension ForfeitureStatute of LimitationsDue Process Clause42 U.S.C. Section 1983Workers' Compensation BenefitsEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentAdministrative CodeRetirement PlansConstitutional Rights
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 11,128 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