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
May 13, 1992

Altimari v. Parker

Plaintiff, a maintenance mechanic for the Wappingers Central School District, was terminated from his employment. After arbitration led to reinstatement without back pay, plaintiff sued his union, the Wappingers Federation of Transit, Custodial and Maintenance Workers, alleging a breach of its duty of fair representation due to inadequate legal representation during the arbitration hearing. The Supreme Court denied the union's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to disqualify the union's counsel. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of fair representation, as mere negligence by a union representative is insufficient for such a claim. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant union and dismissed the complaint.

Duty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceBreach of DutyAppellate ReviewUnion RepresentationEmployment LawLabor Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

David Martin, an admitted homosexual and correction officer at Coxsackie Correctional Facility, filed a civil action against the Law Enforcement Officers Union Council 82 AFSCME AFL — CIO. He alleged sexual discrimination, retaliation, conspiracy to discriminate under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, Title VII, and New York state law, and breach of duty of fair representation by the Union. Martin claimed he experienced persistent homophobic harassment from co-workers, discriminatory treatment by supervisors, and inadequate representation from the Union regarding his grievances. The Court granted the Union's motion for summary judgment on the sexual discrimination (Title VII/HRL) and conspiracy claims, ruling that sexual orientation is not a protected class under current law for these claims. However, the Court denied the Union's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claims and partially denied it for the breach of duty of fair representation claims, allowing several of Martin's timely grievances to proceed to trial.

Sexual DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentDuty of Fair RepresentationLabor UnionSexual Orientation DiscriminationGender StereotypingSummary JudgmentCivil Rights ActNew York Human Rights Law
References
46
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

Prevost v. New York State Department of Social Services

The petitioners, maternal grandparents, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services and the Warren County Department of Social Services. They sought to expunge a report from the State Central Register indicating inadequate guardianship concerning their grandson, Justin. Justin had been placed in foster care, and concerns arose about his behavior after monthly visits with the petitioners, prompting a psychiatrist to recommend discontinuing overnight visits. The psychiatric report detailed Justin's anger towards his grandmother and later allegations of diapering. Despite the petitioners' denials and claims of bias, the agency's decision to indicate inadequate guardianship was upheld after administrative review and a fair hearing. The court ultimately confirmed the determination, citing substantial evidence based on Justin's consistent accounts.

Child protective servicesInadequate guardianshipFoster careAdoption eligibilityCPLR article 78 proceedingAdministrative reviewExpungement of reportHearsay evidenceCredibility determinationSocial Services Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jelenic v. Campbell Plastics

Pro se plaintiff Karl Jelenic sued his employer Campbell Plastics for wrongful termination and discrimination, and his union, IUE Local 318, for inadequate representation during grievance hearings and arbitration. Jelenic alleged he was improperly discharged for raising safety concerns, while Campbell maintained he was terminated for insubordination. He also claimed the union failed to assist him adequately. The court found no evidence that Local 318's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, thus no breach of the duty of fair representation occurred. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing Jelenic's complaint in its entirety.

wrongful terminationdiscriminationunion representationgrievancearbitrationsummary judgmentinsubordinationduty of fair representationcollective bargaining agreementfederal court
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2008

Henry v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Gary Henry, a former UPS employee, sought to vacate an arbitration award upholding his termination for sexual harassment. The Union filed a grievance on his behalf, leading to arbitration before Arbitrator Carol Wittenberg. Henry alleged the Union breached its duty of fair representation (DFR) by providing inadequate advice and representation, causing delay, and discouraging independent counsel. The court found Henry's allegations insufficient to establish a breach of DFR, stating that negligence is not enough and that Henry failed to show the Union's conduct undermined the arbitration outcome. Additionally, Henry failed to allege a violation of the collective bargaining agreement by UPS. Therefore, the court granted UPS's motion to dismiss Henry's amended petition.

Arbitration Award VacaturDuty of Fair RepresentationSexual HarassmentCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissFederal Labor LawEmployee TerminationGrievance ArbitrationSecond Circuit PrecedentDistrict Court Ruling
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2004

Smith v. Bowers

Plaintiffs, members of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), moved for a preliminary injunction against the ILA and United States Maritime Alliance, Ltd. (USMX). They sought to prohibit the implementation of a Master Contract, enjoin disciplinary actions against them, and direct a re-run of the contract ratification vote. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Section 101(a)(1) of the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act (LMRDA) due to disenfranchisement of members in three locals, inadequate notice and secrecy in others, and coerced votes. They also asserted claims of impermissible retaliation and breach of the Union's duty of fair representation. The Court, applying a heightened "clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits" standard, denied the motion. It found that while Plaintiffs met the jurisdictional bar, they failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on their LMRDA claims regarding vote disqualification and alleged improprieties, or on their retaliation and duty of fair representation claims. The Court also concluded that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of hardships tipped in their favor, noting the potential destabilization of the East Coast shipping industry and economic benefits of the new contract for other union members.

Labor lawUnion electionsLMRDANorris-LaGuardia ActPreliminary injunctionVoting rightsDuty of fair representationContract ratificationUnion governanceLabor dispute
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1971

Commarato v. McLeod

The President of Local 400 sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from conducting a representation election, pending the final disposition of unfair labor practice charges. The Regional Director opposed this, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. The court reviewed the factual background, including a postponed election, subsequent unfair labor practice charges filed by unions against Art Steel Company, Inc., and the Board's decision to proceed with the election despite its own 'blocking charge rule'. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's discretionary order to proceed with the election, as it did not fall under the narrow exception of the Board acting in direct contravention of a specific statutory mandate. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActRepresentation ElectionPreliminary InjunctionJudicial ReviewNLRB JurisdictionUnfair Labor PracticesBlocking Charge RuleStatutory InterpretationFederal Courts
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 1974

Kaminsky v. Connolly

This appellate decision addresses an action by a plaintiff seeking pension benefits from the Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund. The initial trial court granted the plaintiff a pension against the union despite finding him a stranger to the fund and no specific relief sought. However, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff, an owner-driver, was never covered by the collective bargaining agreement and made no contributions to the pension fund. Furthermore, even if considered an employee, he lacked the requisite 15 years of service for eligibility. The court also clarified that federal law governs the union's duty of fair representation, requiring proof of bad faith, which the plaintiff failed to provide. Consequently, the judgment awarding damages was modified, and the complaint against the appellant union was dismissed.

Pension FundLabor UnionTaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementOwner-DriverEmployee EligibilityFair Representation DutyFederal LawAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,240 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