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

Norlite Corp. v. Local 106-106B of International Union of Operating Engineers

Norlite Corporation brought suit against Local 106-106B of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Wayne Horvitz to enjoin arbitration of a labor dispute concerning the discharge of two employees and to recover monetary damages for a wildcat strike. The Union counterclaimed, asserting that the discharges were subject to arbitration and seeking an order to compel it. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding arbitrability, while the complaint against Horvitz was dismissed by consent. The central issue was whether employee discharges fell under the collective bargaining agreement's arbitration clause. The court, citing national policy favoring arbitration and the agreement's broad language, concluded that the discharges were arbitrable, denying Norlite's motion and granting the Union's. Additionally, Norlite's second cause of action for damages related to the wildcat strike was dismissed as premature, pending the outcome of arbitration regarding employee reinstatement and back pay.

ArbitrationLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionNo-strike ClauseUnionEmployerFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority

Plaintiffs (American Atheists, Dennis Horvitz, Kenneth Bronstein, and Jane Everhart) sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, Inc. The Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Establishment Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and state constitutions, challenging the display of a steel cross artifact in the National September 11 Museum. The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court found that the Foundation's actions were attributable to the state. However, applying the Lemon test, the court determined that displaying the cross had a secular purpose, did not endorse religion, and did not create excessive entanglement. The court also rejected the Equal Protection and state law claims, concluding that no intentional discrimination was shown and that the state law claims failed for various reasons, including non-applicability to the bi-state agency or failure to comply with notice requirements. Therefore, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted.

First AmendmentEstablishment ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSummary JudgmentState ActionReligious SymbolSeptember 11 MemorialMuseum ExhibitGovernment FundingConstitutional Law
References
80
Showing 1-2 of 2 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