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

Commer v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees

Roy Commer, a pro se plaintiff, sued the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) alleging violations of federal labor laws, specifically LMRDA §§ 101(a)(2) and 501, LMRA § 301, and 29 U.S.C. § 158, seeking reinstatement as president of Local 375 and substantial damages. AFSCME moved to dismiss all claims and requested sanctions. The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the LMRDA § 501 claim against AFSCME was not cognizable under the statute and that the claim against John/Jane Does lacked jurisdiction. The LMRA § 301 claim was dismissed due to collateral estoppel and failure to allege a specific contract breach. The LMRDA § 101 claim was dismissed administratively due to a pending identical prior action. Lastly, the 29 U.S.C. § 158 claim was found to be preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. The court, however, denied AFSCME's motion for sanctions against Commer, citing his pro se status while issuing a warning against future re-litigation of already dismissed claims.

Federal Labor LawLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActMotion to Dismiss GrantedSanctions DeniedCollateral EstoppelPreemption DoctrinePro Se LitigationUnion Officer Removal
References
43
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

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

American Federation of Government Employees Local 1 v. Stone

Plaintiff Justin McCrary, a federal employee at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1 (AFGE Local 1) sued the United States for alleged non-payment of his promised salary, citing violations of Fifth Amendment and contract rights under the Little Tucker Act. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court first dismissed AFGE Local 1 as a party due to lack of representational standing. Subsequently, the Court addressed McCrary's claims, finding his constitutional claim for back pay preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act and unexhausted administratively, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court determined McCrary had no protected property interest in a specific salary due to his conditional appointment and probationary status, and no actionable breach of contract claim as federal employees derive benefits from appointment, not contract. Consequently, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was granted, and the Plaintiffs' Complaint was dismissed with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Motion to DismissFederal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)Rule 12(b)(6)Fifth AmendmentDue ProcessLittle Tucker ActCivil Service Reform ActBreach of Contract
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Express Corp. v. Dutschmann

Marcie Dutschmann, a former Federal Express employee, sued Federal Express for retaliatory discharge and breach of contract. A jury found that Federal Express terminated Dutschmann in retaliation for sexual harassment complaints and failed to exercise good faith in its Guaranteed Fair Treatment Procedure (GFTP) following her termination. Federal Express appealed the $89,000 judgment, raising five points related to sufficiency of evidence, contract formation from employee handbooks, breach of contract submission, good faith and fair dealing in employment, and attorney’s fees. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for retaliatory discharge and that Federal Express's GFTP created a contractual duty of good faith, which it breached by manipulating the review process.

Retaliatory DischargeSexual HarassmentEmployment ContractEmployee HandbookGood Faith and Fair DealingPunitive DamagesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictDue ProcessGrievance Procedure
References
27
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. 2016-08-0701
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

Gueye, Kine v. Federal Express Corporation

The employee, Kine Gueye, appealed a denial of additional benefits for a work-related low back strain, which the employer, Federal Express Corporation, had initially stipulated as compensable. The Appeals Board previously affirmed the trial court's denial of medical care for various complaints the employee alleged were related to her fall. Following a subsequent trial, the court again denied further medical and disability benefits, concluding the employee failed to prove her ongoing complaints primarily arose from her employment, though it awarded future medical treatment for the stipulated back strain. The employee appealed this decision, arguing legal errors and presenting non-appellate issues. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that pro se litigants must adhere to procedural rules and appellate courts will not construct arguments on their behalf. The Board also cautioned trial courts regarding the blanket judicial notice of prior testimony and exhibits.

Workers' Compensation AppealLow Back StrainMedical Benefits DenialTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityCausation IssuePreexisting ConditionPro Se LitigantJudicial NoticeAppellate Review Standards
References
23
Case No. 2025-80-0048
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2026

Meener, Musshur v. Federal Express Hub

The employee, Musshur Meener, appealed the denial of additional medical and temporary disability benefits by the trial court after suffering work-related neck and shoulder injuries in a fall at Federal Express Hub. Despite receiving initial medical treatment and being assigned work restrictions, the employee sought further benefits, arguing the employer could not accommodate his restrictions. The trial court found the employee failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing at trial, particularly lacking medical proof for the causal relation of his current symptoms and entitlement to disability benefits given the employer's offer of accommodation. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employee did not meet his burden of establishing entitlement to the requested additional benefits. The case was subsequently remanded.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityWork RestrictionsMaximum Medical ImprovementCausal RelationBurden of ProofExpedited HearingSlip and Fall
References
3
Case No. 2015-04-0039
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2016

Maples, Sallie A. v. Federal-Mogul Corporation

Sallie A. Maples, an employee, alleged gradual or cumulative trauma injuries to her hands and a resulting mental injury due to her work with Federal-Mogul Corporation. The employer denied the claim, asserting failure to provide timely notice and exceeding the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court ordered the employer to provide a panel of physicians for the employee's bilateral hand arthritis, deferring other benefit requests. The employer appealed, challenging the trial court's findings on notice and statute of limitations. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the employee provided timely notice after Dr. Weikert informed her of the work-relatedness of her condition, and that the claim was filed within the statute of limitations based on the "last day worked" rule.

Cumulative traumaHand arthritisOsteoarthritisStatute of limitationsNotice requirementLast day worked ruleInterlocutory appealMedical causationMental injury claimWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07482 [211 AD3d 1425]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2022

Matter of Spence v. New York State Off. of Mental Health

This case involves an appeal from a judgment dismissing a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action. Petitioners, including Wayne Spence (President of the Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO) and several individual state employees, sought to annul determinations denying their requests for public health emergency leave or paid sick leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) due to COVID-19. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition/complaint. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the appeal moot for one petitioner and that Spence lacked organizational standing. For the remaining individual petitioners, the court concluded that a rational basis existed for their exclusion from FFCRA eligibility as 'health care providers' or 'emergency responders' based on federal regulations and agency guidance at the time their leave was requested.

COVID-19 LeaveFamilies First Coronavirus Response ActEmergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion ActPublic Health Emergency LeavePaid Sick LeaveCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentOrganizational StandingHealth Care Provider ExclusionEmergency Responder Exclusion
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 10,716 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