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

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Johnson & Higgins

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Johnson & Higgins (J&H) over a mandatory pre-65 retirement policy that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court previously found J&H liable and issued an injunction. J&H then sought partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for monetary and injunctive relief based on waivers signed by thirteen retired employee-directors, who had received $1,000 in exchange for waiving ADEA rights. The retired directors later repudiated these waivers, citing conflict of interest, economic duress, and undue influence. The EEOC opposed the waivers, arguing inadequate consideration, lack of voluntariness, and that J&H negotiated them without EEOC participation after a finding of liability. The District Court denied J&H's motion for summary judgment, finding material issues of fact regarding the adequacy of consideration and the voluntariness of the waivers. The court also held that waivers entered into after a finding of liability and without EEOC participation are invalid as a matter of law.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActADEAWaiversSummary JudgmentKnowing and VoluntaryConsiderationOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActOWBPARepudiation of WaiversEEOC Litigation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lippman v. Public Employment Relations Board

This proceeding involved the Unified Court System (UCS) challenging a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found that UCS violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally issuing an administrative order in December 1997 that amended regulations (22 NYCRR part 108) related to court reporters' fees for selling transcripts to litigants. The court reviewed PERB's findings that the new page-rate guidelines and a mandatory "Minute Agreement Form" constituted an improper practice by altering terms of employment. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the page-rate guidelines actually limited reporters' compensation. Furthermore, while the Agreement Form did alter some aspects of employment, its impact was minimal and outweighed by UCS's broader mission to ensure understandable, uniform, timely, and affordable access to justice. Therefore, the court annulled PERB's determination and granted the petition.

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brown v. Verizon New York, Inc.

This case involves appeals from six Workers’ Compensation Board decisions concerning an employer’s right to full reimbursement for benefits paid. The central issue revolves around whether an employer’s right to recover moneys paid pursuant to an employee benefit plan from a later workers’ compensation schedule award is governed by Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a) or (c). The court applied the principles of collateral estoppel and stare decisis, asserting that this issue had been previously decided in Staruch v New York Tel. Co. The court affirmed the prior decisions, declining to re-examine the established rules given the numerous cases processed in conformity with the Staruch precedents. Additionally, the court deferred addressing the preemption issue under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (c), stating it was not squarely presented. The court also specifically disagreed with the employer's argument that Richard D'Arpe's case was factually distinguishable due to the timing of plan filing.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementCollateral EstoppelStare DecisisEmployee Benefit PlanSchedule AwardAppellate ReviewERISA PreemptionNew York LawWorkers' Compensation Law § 25(4)
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1998

Claim of Gardner v. Structure Tone of NY, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits, alleging asbestosis due to asbestos exposure during employment as an elevator operator at a construction site. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant partially disabled by asbestosis, an occupational disease, and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, primarily disputing the claimant's asbestos exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision after finding sufficient evidence of exposure and asbestosis. On further appeal, the employer argued that asbestosis was not inherent to an elevator operator's job, but the appellate court declined to consider this issue as it was not raised in the administrative appeal to the Board. The court also noted the employer abandoned the exposure issue by not raising it on the current appeal, thus affirming the Board's decision.

AsbestosisOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsElevator OperatorAppealAdministrative AppealJudicial ReviewPreservation of IssueWCLJ Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Communications Workers of America/Graduate Employees Union (CWA) petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to be certified as the bargaining representative for graduate and teaching assistants at State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. Initially, PERB's Director dismissed the petition, concluding that these assistants were not 'public employees' under the Taylor Law, applying a balancing test. PERB subsequently rejected this balancing test, establishing a new standard focused on the existence of a regular and substantial employment relationship not explicitly excluded by the Legislature. Under this new standard, PERB reversed the Director's decision, determining that graduate and teaching assistants are covered employees and constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. SUNY then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, arguing legal error in PERB's adopted test and that collective bargaining for academic issues violated public policy. The court upheld PERB's interpretation as reasonable and legally permissible, affirming PERB's determination and dismissing SUNY's petition.

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Hills v. New York City Board of Education

The claimant suffered a work-related wrist injury and was awarded workers' compensation benefits, including a schedule loss of use payment. The self-insured employer mailed a check for $4,580.20, but the claimant asserted non-receipt and denied endorsing the cancelled check. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge ordered the employer to re-issue payment and investigate. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding that timely mailing constituted payment and absolved the employer of further obligation. The Appellate Division found the Board's reversal arbitrary and capricious, as it failed to provide a rationale for deviating from its own conflicting precedents regarding employer responsibility in cases of unreceived or improperly endorsed payments. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the determination that the employer was not required to issue another check, and remitted the matter for additional proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UsePayment DisputeCheck Non-receiptEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawArbitrary and CapriciousRemittal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Willoughby Realty & Management Co. & New York State Independent Union of Building Service Employees & Factory Workers, Local 2

The court reversed a prior order, granting the petitioner's motion to stay arbitration in a dispute between employers and a union. The core issue was the employers' right to lay off employees under a collective bargaining agreement, which required "good faith and sound business judgment." While the union challenged the employers' good faith, the court found insufficient facts presented to raise a genuine issue for arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration was stayed. A dissenting opinion argued that the record contained adequate circumstances to challenge the employer's good faith, warranting arbitration. An appeal from a decision by Justice Conlon dated November 5, 1959, was dismissed on grounds of non-appealability.

Arbitration StayCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee LayoffsEmployer RightsUnion DisputeGood Faith ClauseJudicial ReviewAppellate ReversalDissenting OpinionLabor Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Finchum v. Colaiacomo

The Workers’ Compensation Board issued an amended decision ruling against further development of the record on the employer’s liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 56, and later denied the employer's request for reconsideration. The claimant was involved in a serious automobile accident while driving for an uninsured employer, leading to complex proceedings where the employer sought to assign liability to a general contractor, Cleanway Industries, Inc., and its insurer, Travelers Insurance Company. The appellate court found that the Board abused its discretion by sua sponte rescinding its prior directive to further develop the record, particularly without a compelling reason or apparent regulatory authorization. The court noted that the issue of liability had been pending for years and there were potential reasonable excuses for the employer's absence at certain hearings. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Workers' Compensation LawBoard DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionRecord DevelopmentWaiver DefenseUninsured EmployerGeneral Contractor LiabilityInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Civil Service Employees Association (C.S.E.A.) filed an Article 78 application to challenge actions taken by the City of White Plains and the Public Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.). C.S.E.A. sought to vacate a resolution where the City recognized a different employee organization (S.I.W.A.) for a portion of its employees, thereby altering C.S.E.A.'s bargaining unit, and to annul a P.E.R.B. order upholding the City's action. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing improper venue and that it was not a proper party. The court determined that Albany County was the correct venue and that the City was a proper party. The central issue was whether the City could unilaterally change bargaining unit composition without C.S.E.A.'s consent or a decertification petition. The court ultimately denied C.S.E.A.'s requested relief, agreeing with P.E.R.B. that public employers can recognize different employee organizations once an incumbent's unchallenged representation status period expires, in accordance with Civil Service Law sections 204 and 208.

Public Employment RelationsCollective Bargaining UnitsEmployee Organization RecognitionTaylor LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 CPLRBargaining Unit AlterationDecertification ProceedingsPublic Employer RightsVenue Disputes
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 17,031 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