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

Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers Unions, ILGWU

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Joint Board of Coat, Suit and Allied Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, AFL-CIO. This action stemmed from a charge by Hazantown, Inc., alleging the Joint Board engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing for recognition without filing an election petition within the statutory thirty-day period. Hazantown, a New York garment manufacturer utilizing contractors, became the target of picketing aimed at securing a "jobbers' agreement," which would obligate Hazantown to deal exclusively with union contractors, despite the Joint Board's disclaimer of interest in representing Hazantown's direct employees. The picketing demonstrably hindered Hazantown's business operations by inducing a stoppage of deliveries. Despite the complex statutory interpretation issues regarding Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court, acknowledging its narrow jurisdiction, found "reasonable cause" to believe an unfair labor practice had occurred. Consequently, to maintain the status quo pending a full adjudication by the Board, the court granted the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union RecognitionGarment Industry ExemptionJobber's AgreementNLRA Section 8(b)(7)(C)NLRA Section 8(e)District Court Jurisdiction
References
7
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

Elaine W. v. Joint Diseases North General Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including Elaine W., sued Joint Diseases North General Hospital for unlawful sexual discrimination due to its policy of excluding pregnant women from its drug detoxification program. The hospital defended its blanket exclusion on medical grounds, citing a lack of specialized equipment, obstetricians, and licensing for obstetrical care. After conflicting rulings in lower courts, with the Appellate Division siding with the hospital, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court ruled that the hospital must prove its blanket exclusion is medically warranted at trial, rejecting the idea that a mere medical explanation, when disputed, validates a discriminatory policy. The case emphasizes that distinctions based on pregnancy constitute sexual discrimination under New York's Human Rights Law, requiring individual assessment unless a complete medical impossibility of safe treatment is demonstrated.

Sexual DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationDrug Detoxification ProgramHospital PolicyMedical JustificationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentBurden of Proof
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genesco, Inc. v. JOINT COUNCIL 13, UNITED SHOE WKRS. OF AMER.

The plaintiff, Genesco, Inc., a shoe manufacturer, sued Joint Council 13, United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, alleging four causes of action. The first cause of action claimed a breach of collective bargaining agreements and a no-strike clause. The second alleged violations of Section 303 of the L.M.R.A. by inducing other employers to cease doing business with Genesco. The third and fourth causes of action were common law torts alleging inducement of other labor organizations to breach contracts and a scheme to destroy Genesco's business. The court dismissed the first cause of action, finding no valid contract existed at the time of the strike. The second cause of action survived dismissal, while the third and fourth causes of action were dismissed with leave to amend, as they were deemed arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitration ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardJurisdictionPreemptionPendent JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ley v. Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A

Rhonda P. Ley, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, filed a petition against the Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A (Union) seeking a preliminary injunction. Ley alleged that Article XXII of the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Xerox Corporation (Employer) constituted an unlawful 'union signatory' agreement under Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, Ley claimed that the Union's continued attempts to enforce Article XXII violated Sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act. The Union argued that Article XXII was a lawful work preservation provision. The Court found reasonable cause to believe the Union was violating the Act and that a preliminary injunction was just and proper to prevent further statutory violations and maintain public interest. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining the Union from enforcing Article XXII.

Labor LawPreliminary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations ActUnion Signatory AgreementWork PreservationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingArbitrationDistrict Court
References
11
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03553 [207 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

Sullivan v. New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics

Katherine C. Sullivan and Kat Sullivan LLC challenged the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) regarding the application of the Lobbying Act to their advocacy efforts for the Child Victims Act. Plaintiffs asserted the Act was unconstitutional on its face due to First Amendment violations, vagueness, and overbreadth, and also challenged its constitutionality as applied to their activities, alongside the validity of JCOPE's regulations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the facial challenges to the Lobbying Act, declaring it constitutional, and also upheld the dismissal of the challenge to JCOPE's regulations. However, the court reversed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the 'as-applied' challenges, concluding that a justiciable and ripe controversy existed. This allows for judicial review of JCOPE's interpretation and enforcement against plaintiffs' past and threatened future advocacy.

Lobbying ActFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineJusticiabilityRipenessDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewChild Victims Act
References
77
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Joint Apprenticeship & Training Council of Local 363 v. New York State Department of Labor

The plaintiff, Joint Apprenticeship and Training Council of Local 363 (JATC), sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) from deactivating its status as a registered apprenticeship training program. JATC argued that deactivation procedures should mirror deregistration, requiring a hearing, and that the Fitzgerald Act provided a private right of action. The court denied the motion, finding no federal requirement for a hearing for deactivation and distinguishing it from deregistration, which has more severe consequences. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Fitzgerald Act does not create a private right of action for program sponsors. The court also found no irreparable harm to the plaintiff or its apprentices, as apprentices could transfer to other programs without losing credit, and the JATC program could re-register or continue unregistered.

Preliminary InjunctionApprenticeship ProgramDeactivationDeregistrationNew York State Department of LaborFitzgerald ActPrivate Right of ActionIrreparable HarmFederal RegulationsState Regulations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1959

Anzio Frocks, Inc. v. Joint Board Dress & Waistmakers' Union of Greater New York

Anzio Frocks, Inc. sought an order to enjoin arbitration proceedings initiated by the Joint Board Dress and Waistmakers’ Union of Greater New York and the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union, citing alleged violations of a Collective Agreement. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the unions because service on their attorneys was deemed ineffective. Furthermore, Anzio failed to demonstrate any basis for irreparable damage, and the court noted a history of delaying tactics by Anzio. Consequently, the court denied Anzio's petition to enjoin the arbitration.

ArbitrationInjunctionJurisdictionService of ProcessCollective AgreementIrreparable DamageLabor UnionStay OrderDelaying TacticsFederal Court
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Carillo & Local 1115, Joint Board Nursing Home & Hospital Employees Division

This memorandum addresses a labor dispute between Carillon House Nursing Home and Local 1115 Joint Board concerning a contract breach by Carillon regarding wage and benefit increases. The Union initially filed an unfair labor practices charge with the NLRB, which resulted in a cease and desist order against Carillon in January 1977, later enforced by the Second Circuit. Concurrently, the Union demanded arbitration, prompting Carillon to move to stay arbitration in state court, a proceeding the Union removed to this federal court. The Court denied Carillon's motions to remand to state court and to stay arbitration, finding federal jurisdiction and that prior NLRB proceedings do not preclude arbitration. The Court granted the Union's motion to compel arbitration, emphasizing the broad arbitration clause in the contract and the arbitrator's wide latitude in fashioning remedies.

Labor disputeArbitrationContract breachCollective bargaining agreementUnfair labor practicesNLRB enforcementFederal jurisdictionStay of arbitrationCompel arbitrationConcurrent jurisdiction
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 887 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