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. 80 Civil 4699
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 1982

Wallace v. INTERN. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, ETC.

Plaintiff Oscar L. Wallace sued the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots and its Ex. President Capt. Robert J. Lowen after his application for union membership was denied. He alleged wrongful denial of admission, termination of applicant status, denial of due process, equal protection violations, refusal to refer to job assignments, violation of his right to sue, conspiracy, and racial discrimination. The court dismissed most of his claims, including those based on alleged membership rights and civil rights violations, finding he had no vested right to membership and failed to show state action or a conspiracy. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the claim for breach of fair representation, acknowledging the union's duty to an applicant regarding job referrals.

Union MembershipFair RepresentationDue ProcessCivil RightsFederal JurisdictionMotion to DismissLabor LawConspiracyRacial DiscriminationEmployment Rights
References
38
Case No. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AMR Services Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Plaintiff AMR Services Corporation sought a preliminary injunction against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its Local 851 and Airline Division, alleging illegal picketing at J.F.K. International Airport. AMR contended the picketing violated the Railway Labor Act by aiming for representational and organizational purposes among AMR's employees. The defendant unions argued their actions were legitimate, primarily protesting Korean Air Lines' contract termination with Triangle Aviation Services and publicizing AMR's alleged substandard wages, not to organize AMR employees. The court found no objective evidence of a present purpose by the unions to seek recognition of AMR employees, distinguishing the case from precedents involving explicit organizational efforts. Consequently, the court concluded that no "dispute" over representation existed under the Railway Labor Act, and the Norris-LaGuardia Act barred the injunction, leading to its denial.

Labour disputeRailway Labor ActNational Labor Relations ActNorris-LaGuardia ActPicketingUnion representationArea standardsPreliminary injunctionCollective bargainingFederal labor law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCormack International Corp. v. Vohra

McCormack International Corp. brought an action against multiple defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion. The plaintiff claimed that defendants used a scheme involving bad checks and threats from an organized crime figure to remove McCormack from a Tudor Hotel renovation project. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, dismissing the RICO claims for failure to establish a 'pattern of racketeering activity,' specifically lacking sufficient allegations of furtherance of fraud by mail and continuity of criminal activity for extortion. Additionally, the court denied plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint, rejected defendants' motion for sanctions, and denied plaintiff's motion for a retroactive enlargement of time to file objections to a prior report.

RICORacketeeringMail FraudWire FraudExtortionCivil ProcedureMotion to DismissRule 9(b)Rule 12(b)(6)Sanctions
References
31
Case No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2000

Gallagher v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF ELEC. WORKERS

Plaintiff Michael Gallagher sued several entities, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and its President J.J. Barry, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation through IBEW Local Union No. 43's hiring hall. Gallagher claimed the collective bargaining agreement facilitated discrimination against older workers and that Local 43 was an agent of the International defendants. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name the International defendants in his EEOC charge, thus failing to exhaust administrative remedies and that no identity of interest existed between the named and unnamed parties. The court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against the International defendants due to Gallagher's failure to file an administrative complaint against them and the lack of an agency relationship or ratification of discriminatory acts. Furthermore, the court found the claims to be time-barred under both state and federal statutes of limitations.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionCollective Bargaining AgreementEEOCNYSDHRExhaustion of Administrative RemediesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Judgment on PleadingsStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2008

Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. v. United States Agency for International Development

Plaintiffs, including Alliance for Open Society International and Pathfinder International, sued federal agencies (USAID, HHS, CDC) challenging a provision of the Leadership Act requiring grant recipients to explicitly oppose prostitution, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights. The District Court had previously granted a preliminary injunction, finding the "Policy Requirement" unconstitutionally compelled speech and not narrowly tailored. After the case was remanded to consider new "organizational integrity" guidelines, the Court granted the motion to add Global Health Council and InterAction as plaintiffs, finding they had associational standing. The Court subsequently ruled that the new guidelines failed to remedy the constitutional defects, still compelling speech and imposing an unconstitutionally burdensome and non-narrowly tailored separation requirement for affiliate organizations. Consequently, the Court granted the preliminary injunction, barring the enforcement of the Policy Requirement against the plaintiffs, though DKT International was precluded from relief due to res judicata.

First AmendmentCompelled SpeechUnconstitutional ConditionsSpending ClausePreliminary InjunctionAssociational StandingHIV/AIDS FundingProstitution PolicyGovernment GuidelinesNarrow Tailoring
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amnesty International USA v. McConnell

This case involves a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), as amended by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA). The plaintiffs, a group of attorneys and organizations whose work necessitates international communications, argue that the FAA unconstitutionally authorizes surveillance targeting non-United States persons outside the U.S. to acquire foreign intelligence information. They asserted an actual and well-founded fear of surveillance, leading them to incur significant costs to protect their communications. The defendants, including the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the statute. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing, concluding that their fear of surveillance was abstract and hypothetical, and their alleged costs, flowing from a subjective chill, did not constitute a concrete and particularized injury in fact. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the government's motion, dismissing the complaint.

Facial ChallengeFISAFAAForeign Intelligence Surveillance ActFourth AmendmentFirst AmendmentArticle IIIStandingElectronic SurveillanceNational Security
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curry v. American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502

Curry, a former Regional Insurance Underwriting Manager for AIG, sued American International Group, Inc. Plan No. 502 and American International Life Assurance Co. of New York ("AI Life") under ERISA § 502(a) after her long-term disability benefits were terminated. Curry suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis and diabetes. AI Life initially approved her benefits but later terminated them, alleging she could perform a sedentary occupation, relying on unverified medical responses. The court found AI Life's decision to be arbitrary and capricious due to its reliance on unreliable medical opinions, failure to clarify the record, and disregard for Curry's doctors' reports. Consequently, the court granted Curry's motion for summary judgment, denying the defendants' motion, and ordered the reinstatement of her benefits with prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.

ERISALong-term disabilityBenefits terminationArbitrary and capricious standardConflict of interestMedical opinionUnreliable evidenceSummary judgmentOrthopaedic conditionsDiabetes
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seybert v. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots

Plaintiff John R. Seybert, a member of the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots (IOMM & P) union, filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and a breach of the duty of fair representation. Seybert contested his reclassification from Group A to Group B under a new union by-law, arguing it was a retroactive and punitive measure for his political activities. The union contended the rule was a reasonable method to allocate jobs to active seafarers. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, determining that the reclassification was not an unlawful disciplinary action under the LMRDA and did not constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment on the retroactivity claim, as the plaintiff offered no opposition.

Union DisputesLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentUnion By-lawsJob ClassificationHiring Hall RulesInternal Union PoliticsRetroactive ApplicationMember Reclassification
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,491 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