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
Nov 13, 2012

Delaney v. Bank of America Corp.

John Delaney sued Bank of America (BoA) alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and breach of an oral contract related to his internal transfer. Delaney claimed his termination was age-discriminatory and that BoA reneged on a promise regarding account assignments and compensation. BoA moved for summary judgment, asserting Delaney failed to show a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the alleged oral contract was too vague, superseded by discretionary bonus policies, and that Delaney was an at-will employee. The court found insufficient admissible evidence for age discrimination, supporting BoA's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (reduction in force based on performance). Additionally, the court ruled the oral agreement lacked definiteness and was overridden by BoA's discretionary bonus plan, and as an at-will employee, Delaney's termination was permissible. Consequently, the court granted BoA's motion for summary judgment on both claims.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentReduction in ForceAt-Will EmploymentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBut-For CausationOral AgreementDiscretionary Bonus
References
65
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08809
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2017

Dereveneaux v. Hyundai Motor America

Keith Dereveneaux, the plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment to the defendants Hyundai Motor America, Trade Show Fabrications, Inc., Innocean Worldwide Americas, LLC, and Trade Show Specialists Corp. The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal against Hyundai Motor America because the plaintiff failed to oppose the initial motion for relief. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Trade Show Specialists Corp., concluding that the plaintiff was a special employee, which barred his personal injury claim under Workers' Compensation Law. Additionally, summary judgment was affirmed for Trade Show Fabrications, Inc., and Innocean Worldwide Americas, LLC, regarding Labor Law § 200 and § 241 (6) claims, as they demonstrated no control over the work site and the cited Industrial Code provisions were inapplicable. The plaintiff's opposition failed to raise any triable issues of fact.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Premises LiabilityWorksite ControlIndustrial CodeAppellate ProcedureAggrieved Party
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2006

Wilson v. Sirius America Insurance

Stephen Wilson, a foreman for a plumbing subcontractor, was injured at a construction site and, along with his wife, sued the general contractor, K.J. Gold, LLC, for Labor Law violations. K.J. Gold's insurer, Sirius America Insurance Company, disclaimed coverage based on an exclusion requiring a prior written indemnification contract between K.J. Gold and the subcontractor, which was absent. After K.J. Gold defaulted in the underlying action, the Wilsons commenced a new action against Sirius America to recover the unsatisfied judgment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the Wilsons, deeming the exclusion void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that the insurance exclusion itself did not violate General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, and since K.J. Gold never met the policy's condition of obtaining a written indemnification agreement, Sirius America was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Insurance Coverage DisputeIndemnification AgreementSummary Judgment AppealConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsPolicy ExclusionGeneral Obligations LawContract InterpretationAppellate ReversalThird-Party Action
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. v. Transport Workers of America, Local 100

Plaintiffs Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. and Surface Transit, Inc. sued Transport Workers of America, Local 100, Transport Workers of America, and Michael J. Quill for damages alleging a breach of collective bargaining agreements following a 1962 strike. The Union defendants moved for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the arbitration clauses of their agreements. Defendant Michael J. Quill moved to dismiss the action against him, contending that Section 301(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act does not permit actions against individual union officers. The court found the arbitration clauses sufficiently broad to cover the strike issue and granted the stay of proceedings. Additionally, the court granted Quill's motion to dismiss, citing Supreme Court precedent that such actions are against the union, not its president.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementStrikeTaft-Hartley ActMotion to StayMotion to DismissUnion LiabilityIndividual LiabilityNo-Strike ClauseGrievance Procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

VAW of America, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America

Plaintiff VAW of America, Inc. sued United Steelworkers of America to vacate an arbitrator's award. The arbitrator had found that VAW had just cause to discipline an employee, Ms. Krom, but modified her 40.5-hour suspension to 12 hours. VAW argued the arbitrator exceeded authority by modifying the discipline, claiming VAW had exclusive rights under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Union countered that the modification drew its essence from the CBA's 'just cause' provision, allowing the arbitrator to review the proportionality of the penalty. The court, citing precedent, ruled that the 'just cause' provision allowed the arbitrator to assess the reasonableness of the penalty, even without explicit language granting modification power. Consequently, the court denied VAW's motion to vacate and granted the Union's cross-motion to confirm the arbitrator's award.

Arbitration AwardLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJust Cause DisciplineArbitrator AuthorityJudicial Review of ArbitrationSummary Judgment MotionEmployee SuspensionInsubordinationContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bandhan v. Laboratory Corp. of America

Plaintiff Angela Bandhan sued her former employer, Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp.), alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Defendant moved for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis recommended granting summary judgment on failure to promote and unequal pay claims, but denying it on wrongful termination and retaliation claims. Both parties filed objections to the Report. District Judge Berman adopted the Magistrate's Report in its entirety, finding no prima facie case for failure to promote or unequal pay, but genuine issues of material fact regarding wrongful termination and retaliation, allowing those claims to proceed to trial. The Court therefore granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and directed the parties to a trial scheduling/settlement conference.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981New York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteUnequal PayWrongful Termination
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Auslander v. Textile Workers Union of America

Charles Auslander, an employee of the Textile Workers Union of America, sustained an injury in Virginia during a business trip and subsequently died in South Carolina. A claim for workmen's compensation and death benefits was initially awarded in Virginia. A subsequent death benefits claim was filed in New York but was disallowed by the New York Workmen's Compensation Board under section 28 of the Workmen's Compensation Law due to the two-year statute of limitations. The central issue on appeal is whether payments received under the Virginia award constitute 'advance payments' within the meaning of New York's Section 28, which would toll the statute of limitations. The court held that payments made pursuant to an official award of another jurisdiction, actively participated in by the claimant, do not generally fall within the scope of advance payments designed to protect claimants unaware of filing requirements. However, the matter was remitted to the Workmen's Compensation Board for further proceedings to determine if the claimant's consent to the Virginia award was involuntarily obtained due to improper pressure from the employer or carrier, which could potentially alter the classification of those payments.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsAdvance PaymentInterstate ClaimsJurisdictionAppellate ReviewRemittalVirginia Workers' Compensation LawNew York Workers' Compensation LawDeath Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Communication Workers of America v. Town of Greece

The Communication Workers of America, Local 1170 (Union) appealed an order that partially vacated an arbitration award concerning the demotion of a Town of Greece police sergeant. The arbitrator had sustained disciplinary charges but reduced a permanent demotion to one year, finding the original penalty unreasonable. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, agreeing with the Union that the arbitrator acted within his broad discretion and authority under the collective bargaining agreement. The court reiterated that an arbitrator's award can only be vacated if it violates strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds specific limitations. Finding no such exceeding of authority, the appellate court granted the Union's petition to confirm the arbitration award and denied the Town's cross-petition.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementDemotionDisciplinary ActionArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewLabor DisputeAppellate CourtMonroe CountyCPLR Article 75
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernhardt v. Tradition North America

Donald Bernhardt sued his former employers, Tradition North America Inc. and Tradition Asiel Securities, Inc., alleging breach of an implied employment contract. Bernhardt claimed he was wrongfully terminated after exposing illegal securities schemes and reporting them to the SEC, violating an implied agreement that the firm would operate lawfully. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and sought Rule 11 sanctions against Bernhardt's attorney. The court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that Bernhardt failed to state a plausible claim for breach of an implied contract under New York's at-will employment doctrine. However, the court denied the request for Rule 11 sanctions, finding the lawsuit, while unsuccessful, did not constitute sanctionable conduct.

Implied contractEmployment at willWrongful terminationWhistleblowerSecurities law violationsMotion to dismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 11 sanctionsFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNew York employment law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prabhakar v. Life Insurance Co. of North America

The case involves Plaintiff Ratna Prabhakar's pro se complaint against Life Insurance Company of America (LINA) for terminating her long-term disability benefits. Plaintiff, a former State Farm employee, claimed LINA improperly denied her benefits after a 1989 workplace injury. The court conducted a bench trial and found that LINA improperly denied benefits and should have reinstated them. However, the court concluded that Plaintiff's action was time-barred due to a three-year limitations period specified in the policy, notice of which she had received. Despite finding the claim meritorious, the court dismissed the action with prejudice on statute of limitations grounds.

Long-term disabilityERISAStatute of limitationsEquitable tollingMental impairmentChronic depressionBipolar disorderPost-concussion syndromeWorkers' compensation offsetInsurance policy
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 1,312 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