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

Bricklayers & Trowel Trades International Pension Fund v. Wasco, Inc.

This Memorandum Opinion addresses an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's orders confirming the Debtors' (Wasco, Inc. and Lovell’s Masonry, Inc.) Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan and denying the Appellants' (Bricklayers and Trowel Trades International Pension Fund and International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers) motion to dismiss. The Debtors ceased contributions to the Pension Fund, triggering a significant withdrawal liability under ERISA/MPPAA. Despite a D.C. District Court ruling requiring interim payments, the Debtors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, explicitly stating the purpose was to resolve the union issue. The District Court, reversing the Bankruptcy Court, found that the Debtors' actions demonstrated bad faith, citing their press release, evasion of the D.C. court order, and questionable pre-petition insider financial transactions (bonuses, salary increases, and a large transfer to another company while insolvent). Furthermore, the Court concluded that these transactions and the bankruptcy plan itself had a principal purpose to evade or avoid withdrawal liability, violating ERISA § 4212(c), thus making the plan proposed by means forbidden by law and not in good faith under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3).

Bankruptcy AppealChapter 11 PlanERISA Withdrawal LiabilityMultiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActBad Faith BankruptcyInsider TransactionsCorporate MisconductAbsolute Priority RuleEvasion of Court OrdersFiduciary Duty
References
28
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. 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

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Kitty Hawk International, Inc. (In Re Kitty Hawk, Inc.)

The case involves a motion for partial summary judgment by Kitty Hawk International, Inc. (Debtor) against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Union). The Union sought a declaratory judgment that its members' claims under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) were immediately due and payable as administrative expenses, arguing the CBA was not properly rejected. The Debtor contended these were pre-petition claims not entitled to priority. The court ruled in favor of the Debtor, holding that claims arising from a CBA not rejected under § 1113 are still subject to the priority scheme of § 507. It found that both the CBA Claims and WARN Claims were not administrative claims because no services were rendered post-petition, making them lower priority unsecured claims.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementWARN ActClaim PriorityAdministrative ExpensesWage ClaimsDebtor-Employer RelationsUnion ClaimsSummary Judgment
References
35
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

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
Case No. No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2000

Gallagher v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Michael Gallagher, a member of IBEW Local 43, sued the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), its President J.J. Barry, IBEW Local 43, and several electrical contractors, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation. He claimed violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Executive Law § 296. The International defendants (IBEW and J.J. Barry) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name them in his administrative charges with the EEOC and NYSDHR, and that the claims were time-barred. The court granted the motion, finding that the "identity of interest" exception did not apply, thereby barring the ADEA claim against the International defendants. Additionally, the court ruled that Gallagher's state law claims were also time-barred due to failure to file within the statutory limits against the International defendants.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionsCollective BargainingHiring HallEEOCNYSDHRStatute of LimitationsJudgment on the PleadingsIdentity of Interest
References
15
Case No. 75-H-1459
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1976

Airline Flight Atten., Etc. v. Tex. Intern., Etc.

This case addresses a labor dispute between airline flight attendants and Texas International Airlines concerning the Airline's unilateral mid-month flight schedule changes. The core legal question revolves around whether these actions constituted a 'major' or 'minor' dispute under the Railway Labor Act, which dictates different resolution procedures. The Flight Attendants sought injunctive relief, arguing for a major dispute that would require the Airline to maintain the status quo and negotiate. However, the District Court found the Airline's justification, based on the existing collective bargaining agreement and managerial prerogative, to be reasonable and made in good faith. Consequently, the court ruled the dispute was 'minor,' falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Board of Adjustment for contract interpretation, and thus denied the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and granted summary judgment for the defendant.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeStatus Quo ObligationSystem Board of AdjustmentCollective Bargaining AgreementMid-month Schedule ChangesInjunctive ReliefSummary JudgmentContract Interpretation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1947

International Harvester Co. v. Sartain

Ira Sartain sued International Harvester Company, Virginia Engineering Company, and Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division for severe personal injuries sustained from contact with a high-voltage electric wire at a factory construction site. A jury found International Harvester and Virginia Engineering liable, awarding $60,000, while Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division was found not guilty. The trial judge ordered a $20,000 remittitur, which Sartain accepted under protest and appealed. The appellate court upheld the remittitur, entering a final judgment of $40,000 against International Harvester and Virginia Engineering, ruling that both were liable due to non-delegable duties regarding hazardous conditions created on the premises, rejecting their arguments that they were not responsible for the independent contractor's negligence in placing the power line. The court also addressed various assignments of error concerning evidence, jury instructions, and the application of the Workmen's Compensation Law, affirming the trial court's proceedings.

Personal InjuryHigh Voltage LineElectrical AccidentIndependent Contractor LiabilityNon-delegable DutyWorkmen's Compensation ActRemittiturJury Verdict AppealPremises LiabilityForeseeable Danger
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America

Chief Justice Bond dissents from the majority's decision, which reversed a trial court's judgment. The case involves L. R. Smith, who was suspended and fined by Local Union No. 47 for drunkenness and misconduct. Smith sued the International Printing Pressman & Assistants Union of North America, alleging tortious acts. The dissent argues that the International Union should not be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the local union's actions, which were outside its by-laws and not authorized or ratified by the International. Furthermore, the dissent contends that Smith's tort claim is barred by the two-year statute of limitation. The dissent concludes that the trial court's judgment, which found no agency and applied the statute of limitation, should have been affirmed.

Agency LawRespondeat SuperiorLabor UnionsInternal Union RemediesStatute of LimitationsTort ActionBreach of ContractUnion DisciplineDissenting OpinionLocal Union Autonomy
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,754 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