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

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Portlette v. Toussaint

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action regarding breach of a duty of fair representation, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support the claim. The decision cited several precedents to support the dismissal. Additionally, the plaintiff's other arguments were found to be without merit.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintAppellate AffirmationCivil ProcedureCPLR 3211Rockland CountySupreme CourtSufficiency of Pleadings
References
7
Case No. 03-04-00050-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. v. the Texas FAIR Plan Association The Texas Department of Insurance And Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance

Appellant Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of the Texas FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan). Al Boenker had challenged a bulletin issued by FAIR Plan, which restricted fees insurance agencies could charge for homeowners insurance applications and allowed for termination of agencies violating the contract. Al Boenker argued that FAIR Plan violated the separation-of-powers doctrine and exceeded its statutory authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that FAIR Plan is not a state agency subject to the Texas Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking provisions and acted within its authority derived from the FAIR Plan Act and its Plan of Operation by contractually limiting agent compensation and establishing conditions for agent termination.

Administrative LawInsurance LawContract LawSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionAgency AuthoritySeparation of PowersStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
Case No. E2011-00831-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2012

Cristy Irene Fair v. Stephen Lynn Cochran

The case of Cristy Irene Fair v. Stephen Lynn Cochran involved an appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County. The Trial Court dismissed Fair's motor vehicle accident claim because proof of service for her summons was not returned to the clerk until 412 days after issuance, failing to comply promptly with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(1). Consequently, Fair could not rely on Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 to toll the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing the necessity of strict compliance with procedural rules for service of process.

Statute of LimitationsService of ProcessMotion to DismissCivil Procedure RulesAppellate ReviewJudgment AffirmedTennessee LawMotor Vehicle AccidentProof of ServiceTimeliness
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galveston County Fair & Rodeo v. Kauffman

Travis Kauffman entered his steer "Reebok" in The Galveston County Fair and Rodeo steer show. After winning a class, the steer was later disqualified due to allegations of "airing," an unethical fitting practice. Daniel S. Kauffman, Jr., Travis's father, sued the Fair alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence. A jury found in favor of Kauffman on all claims, with recovery elected under the DTPA. The Fair appealed, challenging aspects of the jury charge, evidence sufficiency, damages, consumer status under DTPA, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment but modified it by deleting a $1,500 damage award related to negligence.

DTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActNegligenceBreach of ContractSteer DisqualificationAnimal Show EthicsConsumer ProtectionAppellate ReviewDamagesMental Anguish
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coureau v. Granfield

Plaintiff Victor Coureau commenced a pro se action against Bill Granfield, President of Local 100 UNITE HERE, alleging various wrongs including personal injuries, termination of benefits, fraudulent inducement, and racial discrimination. The Court construed these allegations as arising from the Union's duty of fair representation and/or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, primarily due to the claims being barred by the six-month statute of limitations for breach of the duty of fair representation. Additionally, the Title VII claim failed because a breach of the duty of fair representation was not established and the plaintiff did not plead exhaustion of administrative remedies with the EEOC.

Duty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissPro Se LitigantTitle VII Civil Rights ActLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActUnion GrievanceRacial DiscriminationEmployment Termination
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lahendro v. New York State United Teachers Ass'n

Plaintiff Michael F. Lahendro, a guidance counselor, sued the New York State United Teachers Association (NYSUT) and Brushton-Moira Teachers Association for breach of the duty of fair representation and negligence after NYSUT failed to timely file a demand for a hearing against his employment termination. This oversight led Lahendro to accept a settlement including retirement. Defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which the Supreme Court denied, leading to this appeal. The appellate court reversed, dismissing the breach of fair representation claim based on the 'Martin v Curran' rule, which requires proving all individual union members authorized or ratified the conduct for suits against unincorporated associations, which plaintiffs could not do. Additionally, the negligence claim was dismissed as actions against unions for duties under collective bargaining agreements must be for breach of fair representation.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationNegligenceUnincorporated AssociationMartin v Curran RuleEducation LawCPLRLate FilingSettlement AgreementEmployment TerminationGuidance Counselor
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2008

Prost v. Association of Flight Attendants

Plaintiffs, U.S. Airways flight attendants, sued the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) and its President, Patricia A. Friend. They alleged that defendants misrepresented MidAtlantic Airways' corporate structure as a separate entity rather than a division of U.S. Airways, to deny them employment rights under their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Plaintiffs claimed breach of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the fair representation claims were time-barred and the RICO claim lacked sufficient pleading for "enterprise." The court granted the motion, dismissing the fair representation claims as time-barred (accruing in December 2002 or at latest early 2005) and the RICO claim due to a deficient pleading of the "enterprise" element.

Duty of fair representationRailway Labor ActRICOCollective bargaining agreementStatute of limitationsMotion to dismissAssociation-in-factLabor unionFlight attendantsCorporate structure
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Musto v. Transport Workers Union of America

Plaintiffs, former Title II Utility Men for American Airlines, represented by TWU and Local 501, alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act. They claimed the unions breached their duty of fair representation by deliberately eliminating their jobs during negotiations in 2002, leading to layoffs, and by failing to pursue their grievances. Plaintiffs also asserted American improperly laid them off, breaching collective bargaining agreements and Letters of Understanding. The court denied the unions' motions to dismiss the fair representation claims, finding sufficient evidence of bad faith and discrimination. However, plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages against the unions were dismissed. American's motion to dismiss, arguing minor disputes and lack of collusion, was also denied, as the court found a valid hybrid claim for breach of the CBA inextricably linked to the union's fair representation breach.

Railway Labor ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementLayoffsSeniority RightsContract NegotiationGrievance ProcedureStatute of LimitationsPunitive DamagesHybrid Actions
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snay v. U.S. Postal Service

The plaintiff, a former United States Postal Service (USPS) employee, initiated a lawsuit against her former employer, USPS, and her union, the American Postal Workers Union Local 390. She alleged that USPS improperly denied her FMLA leave and subsequently terminated her employment, while the Union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to adequately process her grievances and misleading her about their status. Additionally, the plaintiff brought claims of gender and disability discrimination against both defendants. The defendants sought to dismiss the breach of collective bargaining agreement and duty of fair representation claims as untimely, and the state law discrimination claims on grounds of federal preemption. The court denied dismissal for the breach of contract and duty of fair representation claims, deeming them timely, but granted dismissal for all state law discrimination claims against both the Union and USPS due to federal preemption.

FMLADuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationPreemptionStatute of LimitationsHybrid ActionMotion to Dismiss
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,815 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