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

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) accused defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company of violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by unilaterally implementing changes to work rules and conditions without prior union consultation. The changes concerned sick leave, vacation days, training time, work attire, and drug/alcohol testing. The court classified these disputes as either 'major' or 'minor' under the RLA. It found that the automatic requirement for doctor's certificates for sick days not contiguous to rest days, holidays, or vacation, and the new work attire policy constituted 'major disputes', and thus granted a permanent injunction to restore the status quo. However, the court deemed disputes over training time, single vacation days, and sick days contiguous to rest days/holidays/vacation as 'minor disputes', denying injunctive relief for these. The court also denied injunctive relief for random drug testing due to insufficient evidence, noting that the issue of drug testing as part of regular medical examinations was being addressed in a separate ruling.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Joint Apprenticeship & Training Council of Local 363 v. New York State Department of Labor

The plaintiff, Joint Apprenticeship and Training Council of Local 363 (JATC), sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) from deactivating its status as a registered apprenticeship training program. JATC argued that deactivation procedures should mirror deregistration, requiring a hearing, and that the Fitzgerald Act provided a private right of action. The court denied the motion, finding no federal requirement for a hearing for deactivation and distinguishing it from deregistration, which has more severe consequences. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Fitzgerald Act does not create a private right of action for program sponsors. The court also found no irreparable harm to the plaintiff or its apprentices, as apprentices could transfer to other programs without losing credit, and the JATC program could re-register or continue unregistered.

Preliminary InjunctionApprenticeship ProgramDeactivationDeregistrationNew York State Department of LaborFitzgerald ActPrivate Right of ActionIrreparable HarmFederal RegulationsState Regulations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. County of Erie

This appellate case concerns the standing of petitioners, Building and Construction Trades Council of Buffalo and Vicinity and Operating Engineers Local 17 Training Fund, to challenge a public works contract awarded by Erie County to Tom Greenauer Development, Inc. Petitioners argued the contract was invalid due to Greenauer's non-compliance with a local law requiring a certified worker training program. The Supreme Court's decision granting the petition was reversed on appeal, with the appellate court concluding that petitioners lacked standing. The court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate an actual injury in fact distinct from the general public, deeming their alleged harm speculative and insufficient for associational or organizational standing. A dissenting opinion argued that petitioners did have standing, emphasizing the local law's intent to promote apprenticeship programs and the direct impact of the county's non-compliance on petitioners' ability to participate.

StandingPublic ContractsLocal LawWorker Training ProgramApprenticeshipErie CountyCPLR Article 78PreemptionERISAInjury in Fact
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abboud v. Cnty. of Onondaga

Noel Abboud, a corrections officer of Arab ancestry, sued the County of Onondaga and several Department of Correction employees for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and New York State law. Abboud alleged ongoing ethnic harassment, including derogatory comments, adverse employment actions like written reprimands, and denial of firearms training. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing statute of limitations and lack of merit, but the court found some compelling circumstances. The court partially denied the motion, allowing hostile work environment claims and certain retaliation and discrimination claims related to firearms qualification, a medical examination, and a restricted duty assignment to proceed. Most other claims, including conspiracy claims and some state law claims, were dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964New York State Human Rights LawSection 1981 ClaimsSection 1983 Claims
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jean-Louis v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

The court properly dismissed the plaintiff's second cause of action, which alleged negligent training, management, and supervision of employees. The plaintiff claimed she was confined to an office for an hour and denied a union representative during a discussion regarding work distribution based on her ethnicity and religious beliefs. The court ruled that this claim is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. It further stated that the cause of action did not provide sufficient facts to invoke the intentional tort exception to the Workers’ Compensation Law, specifically lacking allegations that the defendants had knowledge of or acquiesced in their employees' tortious conduct.

negligent trainingnegligent supervisionworkers' compensation lawexclusive remedyintentional tort exceptionemployment lawdismissalunion representationethnicity discriminationreligious discrimination
References
2
Case No. ADJ9808975
Regular
Feb 06, 2019

GABRIELA MURILLO vs. RICHARD A. MCGEE TRAINING CENTER, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves an appeal by Richard A. McGee Training Center, legally uninsured, challenging a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board finding of permanent partial disability. The defendant argued against including State Compensation Insurance Fund as a defendant, claimed the WCJ improperly omitted apportionment, and disputed the inclusion of pain-related impairment. The Board affirmed the original award, finding the apportionment issue was waived by the defense and lacking sufficient medical evidence to support it. The Board also found no basis to remove the State Compensation Insurance Fund as claims administrator.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardApportionmentPermanent Partial DisabilityWhole Person ImpairmentAMA GuidesQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating PhysicianLegally Uninsured
References
0
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Mason Tenders, District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund & Training Program Fund v. Faulkner

Plaintiffs, comprised of Trustees of Mason Tenders District Council Welfare, Pension, Annuity, and Training Program Funds, and the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York, initiated legal action against Thomas Faulkner d/b/a American Demolition and Thomas Faulkner individually. The suit, filed under ERISA and the Taft-Hartley Act, alleged the defendants failed to allow an audit of their records and did not make required contributions to the plaintiff funds as stipulated by a collective bargaining agreement. Following a default judgment, Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox issued a Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs objected to portions of this report, specifically regarding Faulkner's personal liability and the awarded attorneys' fees. Upon de novo review, District Judge Holwell modified the Report, determining that Faulkner was personally liable for the business's debts and awarding the full amount of attorneys' fees requested by the plaintiffs, totaling $6,588.75.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActEmployee BenefitsPension FundsWelfare FundsCollective BargainingAudit DisputesDefault JudgmentPersonal LiabilitySole Proprietorship
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 137 Insurance Annuity & Apprenticeship Training Funds v. Vic Construction Corp.

The case involves the Board of Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 137 Insurance, Annuity and Apprenticeship Training Funds and the Executive Board of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 137 (plaintiffs) suing Vic Construction Corporation and Charles Nalbone (defendants). Plaintiffs alleged that Vic Construction failed to make payments to the Funds in violation of a collective bargaining agreement and ERISA, and that Charles Nalbone operated Vic Construction as his alter ego. The core dispute revolves around an oral settlement agreement made on January 6, 1993, where Nalbone stipulated to an indebtedness of $26,935.26 and personally guaranteed payment. Defendants later refused to sign a written agreement, citing a subsequent Second Circuit decision in Sasso v. Cervoni which reversed a prior ruling regarding individual liability for corporate ERISA obligations. The court ruled that federal common law should govern the validity of the oral settlement agreement in ERISA disputes, rather than New York's Rule 2104 requiring a writing. Applying factors for determining intent to be bound, the court found that the parties intended to be bound by the oral agreement. The defendants' request to rescind the agreement due to a subsequent change in legal interpretation was denied, as a 'poor prediction of events' or changes in judicial interpretation of statutes do not constitute a mistake warranting rescission. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the agreement was granted.

ERISAOral Settlement AgreementContract EnforcementFederal Common LawNew York Civil Practice Law and RulesAlter EgoCorporate LiabilityMistake of LawJudicial InterpretationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 322 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