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

Little v. Federal Container Corporation

The plaintiff employee, Norman Little, sued the defendant employer, Federal Container Corporation of Tennessee, for damages alleging breach of a 12-month employment contract due to wrongful discharge without cause. The Trial Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the employer breached the contract by discharging Little because his work was deemed satisfactory by his supervisor, Mr. R. E. McCrory, and thus the defendant could not discharge him for cause. On appeal, the court held that the contract provision making Mr. McCrory the sole judge of satisfactory work did not prevent the employer from discharging the plaintiff for just cause. The court found the Trial Judge's ruling on this point was an error of law that restricted the introduction of evidence. Therefore, the case was remanded for a new trial to allow both parties to present full proof regarding the existence of just cause for the plaintiff's discharge.

Employment ContractBreach of ContractWrongful TerminationJust Cause for DischargeAppellate ReviewRemand for New TrialContract InterpretationManagerial DiscretionCorporate ReorganizationTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

W & G Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board

This court case addresses whether an arbitrator's decision, upholding a 'just cause' discharge of an employee after a compensable accident, prevents the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) from hearing a claim of discriminatory discharge under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The court ruled that such an arbitration decision does not preclude the WCB, emphasizing the overriding public policy to have retaliatory discharge claims determined by the WCB as the statutorily mandated exclusive forum. It distinguishes between a contractual just cause discharge and a discriminatory firing, noting that the former could be a pretext for the latter. The court denied the petition to preclude the WCB, asserting that the public policy underlying Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 takes precedence over issue preclusion principles. It also suggests that the WCB can consider arbitration decisions as persuasive evidence but not conclusive.

Workers' Compensation Law § 120Discriminatory DischargeRetaliatory FiringIssue PreclusionArbitration AwardPublic PolicyWCB JurisdictionCPLR Article 78Just Cause DischargeCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cameron v. J. C. Lawrence Leather Co.

Plaintiff Cameron was fired by J. C. Lawrence Leather Company due to a congenital back anomaly that predisposed him to accidental injury, despite his current ability to perform duties. He sued for breach of a collective bargaining agreement, which included provisions for discharge for "just cause." The Circuit Court dismissed his suit. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the company acted in good faith based on medical advice that Cameron's condition made continued employment dangerous. The court concluded that the right to discharge for physical disability, not explicitly covered by the "just cause" disciplinary clause, fell within the employer's reserved management rights under the contract.

DischargePhysical DisabilityCollective Bargaining AgreementJust CauseManagement RightsMedical FindingsPre-existing ConditionEmployment LawAppellate DecisionContract Interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Newsday, Inc. v. Ross

Richard Thone was discharged for falsifying reports, leading to a complex series of administrative and judicial proceedings. Initially denied unemployment benefits, a referee granted them, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, finding misconduct. Concurrently, Thone filed a claim for a termination allowance, which the Industrial Commissioner ordered the employer to pay. The employer's appeal to the Industrial Board of Appeals confirmed this order, ruling against "just cause" for discharge. However, the higher court ultimately annulled the Industrial Board of Appeals' determination, concluding that the Industrial Commissioner should have been collaterally estopped from relitigating the "just cause" issue, given the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's prior finding of misconduct, thereby denying Thone's claim for severance pay.

collateral estoppelres judicataadministrative lawunemployment insurance benefitsseverance payemployee misconductjust cause for dischargefalsification of recordsIndustrial CommissionerUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1987

M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd. v. Cirillo

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd. (petitioner) under CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petitioner's request and granted the respondent, George Medina's, cross-petition to confirm the award. M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd. had discharged employee George Medina, alleging he "goofed off" and took excessive time during deliveries. The arbitrator concluded that M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd. failed to prove just cause for the discharge, noting discrepancies in delivery records and deeming Medina's brief stop at Pitkin Avenue a de minimis breach. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that arbitration awards can only be vacated if the arbitrator acts irrationally, not merely due to mistakes of fact or law, which was not found in this instance. The court upheld the arbitrator's finding that Slavin lacked just cause for Medina's termination.

ArbitrationVacaturArbitration AwardJust CauseDischargeEmployment LawCPLR Article 75Judicial ReviewFactual ErrorLegal Error
References
3
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

Cusumano v. Schlessinger

The plaintiff, an operator employed by Rodin, was discharged on October 2, 1914, after agents of the International Garment Association informed Rodin that the plaintiff was not a union member, violating an agreement between Rodin's association and the defendant. The plaintiff, claiming wrongful discharge and subsequent inability to find work, was awarded $500 in the lower court. However, the defendant appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Rodin had the right to discharge an employee hired for an indefinite term with or without cause. The court also determined that the defendant's truthful statements did not constitute an actionable offense, as the responsibility for discharge rested solely with the employer. Furthermore, no evidence suggested the defendant prevented the plaintiff from seeking other employment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Wrongful dischargeLabor disputeUnion membershipEmployer-employee relationsTrade associationsContractual agreementsAppellate reviewDismissal with costsUnemploymentRight to discharge
References
0
Case No. 03-03-00587-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2004

Luzstella Arbelaez v. Just Brakes Corporation

This is a summary judgment case where Luzstella Arbelaez appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Just Brakes Corporation. Arbelaez sued Just Brakes for vicarious liability after an employee, Brian Paul, collided with her while on a breakfast run for his manager and co-workers. The district court ruled that Paul was not within the course and scope of his employment. The appellate court reviewed the decision de novo, finding that Just Brakes failed to prove as a matter of law that Paul was not acting within the course and scope of his employment, citing evidence that the errand was a 'first assignment,' routinely done, benefited the employer, and Paul was reimbursed and 'on the clock.' Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, stating that genuine fact issues exist regarding Paul's employment scope.

Summary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentEmployee NegligenceAppellate ReviewDe Novo ReviewFact IssueEmployer BenefitDeviation from EmploymentTexas Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Just Energy Texas I Corp. v. Texas Workforce Commission and Cedric Thomas

Just Energy Texas I Corp. appealed the dismissal of its suit against the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) and Cedric Thomas for lack of jurisdiction. Just Energy challenged the trial court's ruling that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The core issue revolved around whether Just Energy was 'aggrieved' by the TWC's decision reversing an initial denial of unemployment benefits to Thomas, thereby waiving TWC's sovereign immunity. The court concluded that Just Energy's potential future injuries, such as chargebacks or other claims, were not 'actual and immediate' losses required to be considered 'aggrieved' under the Texas Labor Code. Therefore, the Commission's sovereign immunity was not waived, and the trial court correctly dismissed the case for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUnemployment BenefitsJudicial ReviewAggrieved PartySubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Labor CodeAdministrative RemediesIndependent Contractor
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Asset Protection & Security Services v. Service Employees International Union, Local 200 United

The Union appealed from an order that partially vacated an arbitration award. The arbitrator had determined that Asset Protection & Security Services, LP (APSS) lacked just cause to discharge an employee and ordered reinstatement with back pay. The Supreme Court vacated the award entirely. This appellate court found that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the arbitrator's finding of no just cause for termination, thereby reversing that part of the order. However, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by reinstating the employee and awarding back pay and benefits, citing the Collective Bargaining Agreement's (CBA) limitations on remedies in cases involving ICE-mandated actions. Two judges dissented in part.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeJust CauseArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewPublic PolicyReinstatementBack PayCPLR
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 8,275 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