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

Harvey v. Marlene Industries Corp.

The National Labor Relations Board, through its Acting Regional Director William K. Harvey, sought an injunction under NLRA Section 10(j) to prevent Marlene Industries Corporation from distributing proceeds from an asset sale. This was in anticipation of a final Board decision on unfair labor practice charges, which an Administrative Law Judge had found against Marlene. The long-standing labor dispute originated in 1970 with employee discharges and subsequent picketing. The court, however, denied the injunction, concluding that there was no demonstrated danger of irreparable harm. Furthermore, the court found that the core issues had been previously addressed and resolved by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1975, ruling that Marlene's actions in 1970 were not unlawful, and thus, extraordinary relief was unwarranted.

Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticesNational Labor Relations ActAsset SaleRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSixth Circuit Court of AppealsBack Pay ClaimsIrreparable HarmSection 10(j)
References
5
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Price v. KGM Plastic Industries

Claimant, a sales president for Caprice and KGM Plastic Industries, experienced severe emotional distress due to ongoing conflicts with his superior, Toshimasa Asai, regarding business decisions and job security. This culminated in a heated argument on January 6, 1983, after which the claimant became ill, developed nosebleeds, and suffered a stroke on January 11, 1983, leading to permanent disability. His physician testified that the stroke was causally related to job-induced emotional stress exacerbating pre-existing hypertension. The Workers' Compensation Board found a causally related disability, and this decision was affirmed on appeal, supported by substantial medical evidence despite controverting opinions.

Work-related disabilityEmotional distressCerebral vascular accidentStrokeHypertension exacerbationCausationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceEmployer-employee conflict
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Findlay Industries, Inc.

The Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Findlay Industries Inc. for alleged unpaid contributions related to vacation and holiday pay, seeking back contributions, liquidated damages, and injunctive relief. Findlay Industries Inc. maintained that its collective bargaining agreements with four local unions only required contributions for 'hours worked,' not for vacation or holiday pay. The court found that Findlay had consistently contributed based on 'hours worked' since 1973, and the Fund had knowingly accepted this interpretation for many years. Despite previous audits and demands, the Fund's claims for additional contributions were rejected, and the court ruled that the collective bargaining agreements required contributions only for 'hours worked.' Consequently, all claims by the plaintiff Fund were dismissed on the merits.

Pension Fund DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementHours WorkedVacation PayHoliday PayERISALMRAContract InterpretationEmployer ContributionsTrust Fund
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ginsberg v. Industrial Home for the Blind

The court considered the defendants' motion for summary judgment in a case involving plaintiff Seymour Ginsberg, who sustained a transportation-related injury during his employment with the Industrial Home for the Blind. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's sole legal recourse was under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Special Term correctly granted the defendants' motion, thereby dismissing the complaint. This decision was based on the finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, making the Workers’ Compensation Law the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyTransportation InjuryEmployment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Foulton v. Martec Industries

The claimant, a laborer for Martec Industries, sought workers' compensation benefits for a back injury allegedly sustained on June 7, 2006. Martec and its workers' compensation carrier controverted the claim, citing the claimant's history of prior back injuries in 1998 and 2000. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, concluding the June 7, 2006 incident constituted an accidental work-related aggravation of prior injuries, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence that the June 7, 2006 incident caused a new disability. Evidence showed the claimant had experienced chronic back pain since 1998, and physicians attributed his disability primarily to preexisting conditions. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryAggravationPreexisting ConditionMedical EvidenceDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewReversalRemittalEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patricia v. Delford Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Carrie Patricia brought an action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act against her former employer, Delford Industries, Inc., and her bargaining representatives, Local 546 and the International Union. Patricia alleged wrongful termination by Delford and a breach of the duty of fair representation by the unions for their handling of her grievance. The court considered motions for summary judgment from all parties and Patricia's motion to amend her complaint. The motions for summary judgment by Local 546, Delford, and Patricia were denied. The International Union's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Patricia's motion to amend her complaint was also granted.

Labor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Civil ProcedureRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelUnemployment Benefits Claim
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scarfi v. Bright Star Industries, Inc.

The trustees of the District No. 15 Machinists’ Pension Fund, acting as plaintiffs, initiated this action against Bright Star Industries, Inc. seeking to compel overdue contributions to the fund under ERISA and LMRA. Bright Star moved to dismiss, contending that jurisdiction over the matter was exclusively with the National Labor Relations Board due to previous unfair labor practice proceedings. The court, presided over by District Judge Glasser, denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, asserting its concurrent jurisdiction with the NLRB in cases involving both NLRA violations and breaches of collective bargaining agreements, particularly where a valid contract is still in effect. The court also denied Bright Star's request for costs and attorney's fees.

ERISALMRANLRAPension FundCollective Bargaining AgreementUnfair Labor PracticesJurisdictionMotion to DismissPreemptionConcurrent Jurisdiction
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 8,323 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