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 12, 2010

Mattina v. Ardsley Bus Corp.

This case involves Celeste J. Mattina, Regional Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board, seeking temporary injunctive relief against Ardsley Bus Corp. under Section 10(j) of the NLRA. The General Counsel alleged that Ardsley engaged in unfair labor practices, including unlawfully withdrawing recognition from the Transport Workers Union and making unilateral changes to employment terms. The court reviewed the administrative record, found reasonable cause to believe Ardsley committed these unfair labor practices, and determined that temporary injunctive relief is just and proper to prevent irreparable harm and restore the status quo. The injunction requires Ardsley to cease various unfair labor practices and to bargain in good faith with the Union.

Temporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion DecertificationRefusal to BargainUnilateral ChangesEmployee RightsStatus Quo AnteInjunctive Relief
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abbo-Bradley v. City of Niagara Falls

Three families residing near the Love Canal Landfill initiated an action in New York State Supreme Court, Niagara County, seeking damages and equitable relief for personal injuries and property damage caused by alleged releases of toxic chemicals. The case was subsequently removed to federal court under original federal jurisdiction pursuant to CERCLA. Defendant Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. (GSH) filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief to establish a discovery protocol, requesting prior notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for split samples during plaintiffs' environmental sampling activities. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, citing jurisdictional concerns, work product, and attorney-client privileges. The court, asserting its authority to maintain the status quo pending a remand decision, rejected the privilege claims and found that spoliation concerns warranted the injunction. Consequently, the court granted GSH's motion, enjoining plaintiffs from further environmental sampling without providing 96-hour written notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for all parties to take split samples.

Environmental LitigationCERCLAPreliminary InjunctionDiscovery ProtocolSpoliation of EvidenceWork Product DoctrineAttorney-Client PrivilegeLove CanalToxic WasteHazardous Materials
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernbach v. 3815 9th Avenue Meat & Produce Corp.

The Regional Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board petitioned the court for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition sought an interim order to halt alleged unlawful labor practices and mandate the reinstatement of five employees discharged on October 22, 2011, amid union organizing efforts. The court found reasonable cause to believe the employer violated the Act, noting the close temporal proximity between the employer learning of union activity and the discharges, and the pretextual nature of the employer's cost-saving justification. It also determined that injunctive relief, including a cease and desist order and employee reinstatement, was just and proper to restore the status quo and mitigate the chilling effect on unionization caused by the discharges. Consequently, the court granted the petition for injunctive relief.

National Labor Relations ActNLRBSection 10(j)Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticeEmployee DischargeUnion OrganizingReinstatementCease and DesistLabor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pastrana v. Folding Box, Corrugated Box & Display Workers Local 381

The plaintiffs, employees of Star Corrugated Box Co., Inc. and members of Local 381, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement between Local 381 and Star. They alleged that union officers executed the agreement despite employee rejection, violating their duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act. The court found no evidence of discrimination, distinguishing the cited precedents. Furthermore, it was noted that Local 381, as the statutory bargaining representative, had the right to enter the agreement. The plaintiffs' delay in seeking relief, coupled with the National Labor Relations Board's dismissal of related unfair labor practice charges against the employer (thus validating the contract), led the court to deny the motion for preliminary injunction. The court emphasized that granting the injunction would disrupt economic interests and that plaintiffs failed to show a clear right to relief.

Preliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationLachesUnfair Labor PracticesUnion Contract RejectionFederal CourtLabor LawInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 1997

Capers v. Giuliani

Plaintiffs, public-assistance recipients in New York City's Work Experience Program (WEP), alleged unsafe working conditions in their sanitation-related assignments, claiming violations of OSHA standards and inadequate provision of protective gear, facilities, and training. They also contended that regular City employees received more favorable treatment and a better grievance procedure. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief and class certification, while denying defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint on procedural grounds due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (Labor Law § 27-a) and the Social Services Law. The court emphasized that administrative agencies have exclusive original jurisdiction over such matters, and judicial review is only permissible after administrative channels have been exhausted. The preliminary injunction was also found to be improperly granted due to a lack of factual findings.

Work Experience Program (WEP)Public Employee Safety and Health ActExhaustion of Administrative RemediesInjunctive ReliefClass CertificationOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Labor LawSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Langham v. State

This case concerns an appeal by teachers, represented by the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), challenging the denial of retroactive dual family health insurance coverage. The plaintiffs originally lost dual family coverage under a State Health Insurance Plan and subsequently sought the same retroactive benefits granted to members of another union, the New York Educators Association (NYEA), following a separate settlement. Their request was denied, leading them to file an action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Special Term dismissed the complaint as untimely, a decision affirmed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that the four-month limitations period of CPLR 217 governed the declaratory judgment action and began on January 3, 1984, when plaintiffs learned of the unequal treatment, rather than the later date of their specific request's denial.

Declaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCivil Service LawCPLRStatute of LimitationsDual Family CoverageHealth InsuranceState EmployeesCollective BargainingUnequal Treatment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mitz v. Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners

A group of non-veterinarian equine dental practitioners and horse breeders, collectively 'Appellants,' sought declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. They challenged the constitutionality of the Board's regulation of equine dentistry under the Veterinary Licensing Act. The trial court initially granted the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, abating the case due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and primary agency jurisdiction. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the Appellants were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing their constitutional claims. The court affirmed that the Board lacked exclusive or primary jurisdiction over constitutional challenges and that the case was ripe for judicial review, with the practitioners having established standing.

Constitutional LawAdministrative LawVeterinary Licensing ActEquine DentistryDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefExhaustion of RemediesPrimary JurisdictionExclusive JurisdictionRipeness
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Douds Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n, Local Union No. 28

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against an unnamed labor organization (the respondent) under Section 10(l) of the NLRA. This action stemmed from a charge by Ferro-Co Corporation, alleging the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices under Section 8(b)(4)(A) by inducing employees of Dierks Heating Co., Inc. to refuse to handle Ferro-Co products. The court examined whether the respondent's actions constituted an illegal secondary boycott, which the legislative history of Section 8(b)(4)(A) aimed to prevent. It found no evidence of a labor dispute between the respondent and Ferro-Co (the 'secondary' employer), concluding the dispute was primarily with Dierks (the 'primary' employer). Since the circumstances did not align with the traditional concept of a secondary boycott, the court determined that equitable relief was not warranted and consequently denied the petition for injunctive relief.

Labor InjunctionSecondary BoycottNLRA Section 8(b)(4)(A)Taft-Hartley ActUnfair Labor PracticeCollective Bargaining AgreementPrimary DisputeNeutral EmployerUnion ConductTemporary Restraining Order
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Willson v. Shannon

Plaintiffs Helene Smith Willson and Arlyn-ra Edward brought an action against the Defendant Army for gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. A jury found that the Army discriminated against them by denying access to a real estate appraiser's position and unlawfully retaliated after their complaints. The Court denied the Defendant's motion for a new trial, upholding the jury's verdict and rejecting arguments against retroactivity of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the scope of damages. The Plaintiffs' motions for judgment, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief were granted, with the Court awarding substantial damages for back pay, front pay, and mental anguish, along with attorney's fees. Additionally, the Defendant was permanently enjoined from further discriminatory or retaliatory conduct, and preferential placement was ordered for the Plaintiffs in the Galveston district office.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Gender DiscriminationJury TrialAttorney's FeesInjunctive ReliefFront PayBack Pay
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Independent School District v. Daniel

Walter Daniel and the Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local Union No. 1442 sued the Dallas Independent School District and its officials for wrongful termination of Daniel's employment, alleging it was due to his union membership, grievance presentations, and testimony in a prior lawsuit. The trial court granted a temporary mandatory injunction, reinstating Daniel, and found his discharge unlawful under Texas statutes and the State Constitution. The defendants appealed this injunction. The appellate court, presided over by Chief Justice Dixon, reversed the trial court's order, ruling that it erred by deciding the ultimate factual issues of the case in a preliminary hearing for a temporary injunction. The appellate court emphasized that a temporary injunction should not grant substantially all the relief obtainable in a final hearing.

wrongful terminationunion membershiptemporary injunctionlabor lawTexas Constitutionappellate proceduredue processfreedom of assemblyjudicial discretionadministrative remedies
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,241 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