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

Johnson v. D.M. Rothman Co.

Plaintiffs Talbert Johnson and Troy Saunders sued their employer, D.M. Rothman Company, Inc., for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA, NYLL, and LMRA, alleging Rothman failed to include certain wage differentials in overtime calculations as per their Collective Bargaining Agreement. Rothman counterclaimed for overpayment of wages and moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing claims related to grandfather and hi-lo pay due to LMRA preemption, as these required interpretation of the CBA. For night differential claims, the court found Rothman's overpayments largely offset any FLSA overtime owed, dismissing most of these claims. Johnson's LMRA claim was time-barred, while Saunders' LMRA claim regarding hi-lo pay remained potentially viable.

OvertimeFLSANYLLLMRAWage DifferentialsCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentGrievance ProceduresStatutory RightsPreemption
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1996

Trustees of the Health & Welfare & the Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards v. Schlesinger Bros.

Plaintiffs, Trustees of the Health and Welfare and Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards and Esther Maiese, filed an action against Schlesinger Brothers, Inc. and the International Leather Goods, Plastics, Novelty and Service Workers Union, alleging violations of ERISA and LMRA. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that defendants breached ERISA's 'sole benefit rule' by diverting contributions from the FJBC Funds to the International's Funds. They also alleged that Schlesinger violated the collective bargaining agreement under LMRA. The court determined that Schlesinger did not act as a fiduciary under ERISA and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the LMRA claim against the employer. Similarly, the court found that the International union was not subject to fiduciary duties under ERISA when engaged in collective bargaining. Consequently, the court granted Schlesinger's motion to dismiss the entire complaint and the International's motion to dismiss the ERISA claim, leaving only the LMRA claim against the International viable.

ERISALMRAFiduciary DutyCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissPension FundsHealth and Welfare FundsUnionEmployer LiabilityStanding
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madden v. International Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers

Kenneth Madden, a union officer, was removed from his position by the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers and its officers, William Bernard and James Grogan, following a dispute over dues and an alleged hearing. Madden filed suit alleging violations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA), along with claims of libel and infliction of emotional distress. The individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under the LMRA. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding sufficient purposeful activity by the defendants in New York to establish jurisdiction. However, the motion to dismiss the LMRA claims for monetary damages against the individual officers was granted, consistent with Supreme Court precedent shielding individual union officers from monetary liability under LMRA Section 301. The motion to dismiss the complaint against Grogan for failure to allege a claim was denied.

LMRDALMRALabor UnionPersonal JurisdictionMotion to DismissIndividual LiabilityUnion OfficersFiduciary Shield DoctrineLabor DisputesNew York Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sciascia v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

The Trustees of the Special and Superior Officers Benevolent Association Defined Contribution Fund (Plaintiffs) sued Rochdale Village, Inc. (Defendant) for allegedly failing to make required contributions to the fund. The Plaintiffs' claims were brought under Section 301 of the LMRA and Sections 515 and 502(a)(3) of ERISA. The Defendant argued that its obligation was contingent on an unsatisfied condition precedent and that the contributions would be illegal under LMRA Section 302. The Court found the Memorandum of Agreement created an unambiguous obligation for the Defendant to contribute, and the SSOBA Fund did not violate LMRA Section 302. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the Defendant's motion.

ERISALMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDefined Contribution PlanPension FundSummary JudgmentCondition PrecedentMultiemployer PlanTrust FundEmployer Contributions
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 531 Sick & Welfare Fund v. Marangi Bros.

The Trustees of the Local 531 Sick and Welfare Fund and Roy W. Harris, as President of Local Union No. 531, sued several Marangi entities for delinquent employer contributions and unpaid dues under ERISA and LMRA. Plaintiffs alleged under-reporting of employees and failure to contribute to the Sick and Welfare Fund. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that any payments would violate LMRA § 302. The court found that contributions to the Fund do not violate LMRA § 302 and that payment of any judgment would also be permissible. However, the court granted the defendants' motion to limit damages for Donato Marangi Inc. after May 31, 2000, as the Collective Bargaining Agreement had expired and no new written agreement was drafted.

Collective Bargaining AgreementERISALMRADelinquent ContributionsMulti-employer PlanTrust FundSummary JudgmentContract TerminationWritten Agreement RequirementUnion Benefits
References
22
Case No. NO. 14-06-00557-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2008

Douglas K. Brocail v. Detroit Tigers, Inc.

Douglas K. Brocail, a professional baseball player for the Detroit Tigers, sued the Club for injuries to his pitching arm. The Club was granted summary judgment based on federal Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA) preemption, the Michigan Workers Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) exclusive-remedy provision, and Michigan's statute of frauds. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that most of Brocail's claims were either preempted by the LMRA or barred by the WDCA or the Michigan statute of frauds, specifically those relating to medical care and treatment. The court concluded that intentional torts were the only exception to the WDCA's exclusive remedy rule, but claims to which Brocail attempted to apply this exception were barred by the LMRA or the Michigan statute of frauds.

Professional Baseball PlayerSports InjuryElbow InjuryCollective Bargaining AgreementLMRA PreemptionWorker's Disability Compensation ActMichigan Statute of FraudsSummary JudgmentTort ClaimsMedical Negligence
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Caravan Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiff Angel Martinez filed an action against Caravan Transportation, Inc., Caravan Transit, Inc., and Transport Workers Union, Local 100, alleging violations of ERISA, WARN, LMRA, and RICO. Martinez later withdrew his RICO and most ERISA claims. The defendants sought summary judgment on the remaining LMRA and WARN claims. The court granted summary judgment, determining that Martinez's LMRA claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that he failed to demonstrate the corporate defendants constituted separate entities, which was crucial for his 'follow the work' theory. Furthermore, the court dismissed the WARN claim, finding that Martinez and other employees did not suffer an 'employment loss' as defined by the act, given their prompt re-employment. Requests for attorney's fees from both sides were denied.

Employment LawLabor RelationsERISAWARN ActLMRARICOSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDuty of Fair RepresentationSingle Employer Doctrine
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marriott In-Flite Services v. Local 504, Air Transport Division

Marriott sued Transport Workers of America Local 504 for damages, alleging secondary picketing in violation of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The dispute arose after KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, whose employees were members of the defendant union, closed its commissary and contracted with Marriott for food service, leading to a strike and alleged property destruction by the union. The union moved for summary judgment, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it was covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), not the LMRA. The court found that because 86% of the union's members were RLA employees and the primary dispute was with an RLA employer, the union did not fall under the LMRA's definition of a 'labor organization'. Consequently, the court granted the union's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Marriott's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Secondary PicketingSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionRailway Labor ActLabor Management Relations ActLabor DisputeUnion ActivitiesRLA EmployeesLMRA DefinitionStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tuvia Convalescent Center, Inc. v. National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees

Tuvia Convalescent Center, Inc. (plaintiff) sued the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees and two related Funds (defendants), alleging nine claims including breach of collective bargaining agreement (LMRA § 301), antitrust violations, and breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, contending a lack of complete diversity jurisdiction, preclusion of antitrust claims by the labor exemption, improper LMRA § 301 claims against the National Union (which was not a signatory), and the plaintiff's lack of standing to bring ERISA claims. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing all claims against the National Union and the Funds with prejudice. The court found no complete diversity, no contractual relationship for the LMRA claims against the National Union, the labor exemption applicable to the antitrust claims, and that the plaintiff lacked standing under ERISA.

Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 12(b)(1)Diversity JurisdictionAntitrust ClaimsLabor ExemptionLMRA Section 301ERISA ClaimsFiduciary DutyStanding to SueCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gorenflo v. Penske Logistics

Plaintiff Sharon Gorenflo sued Penske Logistics, LLC and several individuals, including Union representatives, under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), alleging breach of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for wrongful suspension and termination without just cause. She also initially asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, which were dismissed and her suit converted exclusively to an LMRA claim. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the suit was barred by New York's election of remedies doctrine due to a prior complaint filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). The court denied the motion to dismiss against Penske, finding the DHR complaint, which alleged discrimination, did not sufficiently overlap with the federal breach of contract claims to invoke the election of remedies doctrine. However, the court granted dismissal of the breach of contract claims against individual defendants Cole, Miletics, Quinn, Svingala, and Hitchcock, as they were not signatories to the CBA, a requirement for LMRA claims against individuals.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractDuty of Fair RepresentationElection of Remedies DoctrineMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Non-Signatory DefendantsIndividual Liability
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 108 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