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

Romney v. Lin

This opinion addresses an action to collect unpaid contributions owed by Goodee Fashions, Inc. to four union benefit funds, totaling $70,647.17. After an initial judgment against Goodee Fashions proved uncollectible, the plaintiff, representing the union benefit funds, sued Alan Lin, a principal shareholder, under New York Bus. Corp. Law § 630. This state law holds the ten largest shareholders jointly and severally liable for debts to employees, including benefit funds. Defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing preemption by ERISA and LMRA. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 630 is preempted by ERISA. Consequently, the claim for $70,647.17 was dismissed, except for a $598.27 portion related to the Sportswear Industry Trust Fund, which was deemed not an ERISA fund.

ERISA PreemptionLMRAShareholder LiabilityUnpaid ContributionsEmployee Benefit PlansCollective BargainingState Law PreemptionFederal JurisdictionCorporate DebtDismissal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mei Kum Chu v. Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc.

Plaintiffs Mei Kum Chu, Sau King Chung, and Qun Xiang Ling sued their former employer, Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc. (CPC), alleging violations of the New York Labor Law, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. CPC removed the action to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction based on LMRA preemption and moved to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that their claims were not preempted. The Court determined that plaintiffs' state law claims were not substantially dependent on the interpretation of any collective bargaining agreements and therefore, LMRA preemption did not apply. As a result, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state court, rendering CPC's motion to compel arbitration moot.

Labor LawWage and HourOvertime WagesMinimum WageSpread-of-Hours PayWage Parity ActFair Wages ActLMRA PreemptionFederal Question JurisdictionMotion to Remand
References
34
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

Alcantara v. Allied Properties, LLC

Plaintiff-workers filed a lawsuit in New York state court alleging violations of the New York Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (NYDWPA) by new building owners. The plaintiffs sought restoration of their employment and back wages and benefits. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the state law claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The court examined Garmon preemption, Machinists preemption, and Section 301 preemption. It concluded that none of these federal preemption doctrines provided a basis for removal to federal court. The court noted that the state court should be given the opportunity to construe the municipal law's provisions before federal intervention. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

Preemption DoctrineNLRA PreemptionLMRA PreemptionNYDWPAWorkers' Protection ActMotion to RemandFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsCollective BargainingLabor Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

Duane Reade, Inc. v. LOCAL 338, RETAIL, WHOLESALE, DEPT. STORE UNION, UCFW, AFL-CIO

Plaintiff Duane Reade, a large drug store chain, sought a preliminary injunction against Defendant Local 338, a union, to prevent trespassing and solicitation of its employees regarding a union affiliation election. The action, initially filed in New York state court for common law trespass, was removed to federal court by Local 338, which argued for preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Presiding Judge Kaplan considered whether the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of 'complete preemption.' The court concluded that Duane Reade's state law claim fell under 'simple preemption' rather than 'complete preemption,' meaning federal question jurisdiction was not established. Consequently, the district court ruled that the case was improperly removed and ordered it remanded to the New York Supreme Court, County of New York.

Preliminary InjunctionTrespassUnion Affiliation ElectionLabor Management Relations ActLMRA PreemptionComplete PreemptionSimple PreemptionFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionRemand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. Paxton

The City of Austin sued the State of Texas (Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Workforce Commission) to enjoin Texas Local Government Code § 250.007(c). This state law allows landlords to refuse tenants using federal housing vouchers, which the City argues is preempted by federal law due to its ordinance prohibiting such discrimination. The State filed a motion to dismiss, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, affirming the City's standing and ruling the suit not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. However, the Court granted dismissal for the City's conflict preemption and Section 3617 express preemption claims, but denied dismissal for the Section 3615 express preemption claim, concluding the City adequately pleaded a disparate impact claim.

PreemptionFederal Housing Choice Voucher ProgramTexas Local Government CodeFair Housing ActEleventh AmendmentStandingMotion to DismissDisparate ImpactCity OrdinanceState Law
References
37
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

Atanasio v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen

Plaintiff Thomas Atanasio sued his union, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), and its officers, Robert M. Evers and Michael J. Quinn, in state court, alleging demotion due to false representations and discrimination. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing federal question jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Atanasio filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. The court granted the motion to remand, ruling that the RLA's preemption doctrine does not establish "complete preemption" in the same manner as the LMRA, thus preventing federal original jurisdiction for the state law claims. The decision emphasized that a plaintiff, as "master of the claim," can avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusively relying on state law.

Labour DisputeRailway Labor ActPreemptionMotion to RemandFederal Question JurisdictionDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementDiscriminationHepatitis CEmployment Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levy v. Verizon Information Services Inc.

Plaintiffs, sales representatives for Verizon, brought a consolidated class action alleging unlawful wage deductions under New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania state laws, and failure to make overtime payments under federal and state law. Verizon moved to dismiss the wage deduction claims, asserting preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act (§ 301 LMRA) or failure to state a claim under state law. The court granted Verizon's motion in its entirety. It ruled that most post-July 2003 claims were preempted by § 301 LMRA, New York interim claims were preempted under the Machinists doctrine, and pre-July 2003 New York and Pennsylvania claims failed as a matter of state law because advanced incentive compensation did not constitute 'earned wages' before reconciliation, and thus was not subject to unlawful deduction statutes.

Class ActionWage DeductionLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementPreemptionLMRAMachinists DoctrineIncentive CompensationEmployment LawMotion to Dismiss
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Silverman v. Miranda

This litigation involves a protracted dispute concerning employer contributions under Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs). The Plaintiffs, Union Mutual Medical Fund (UMMF) and its Trustees, initially sued Defendants, Teamster Local 210 Affiliated Health and Insurance Fund (Local 210 Fund) and its Trustees, alleging underpayment. After a prior judgment for Plaintiffs was vacated by the Second Circuit due to a lack of ERISA claims, the case was remanded to determine supplemental jurisdiction over state law breach of contract claims. The current court, exercising supplemental jurisdiction, determined that Plaintiffs' state law breach of contract claims are preempted by LMRA Section 301. Consequently, Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and prejudgment attachment were denied, while Defendants' motion for summary judgment on preemption and for the release of escrowed funds were granted. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint to assert LMRA claims.

Collective Bargaining AgreementsERISA ClaimsLMRA PreemptionBreach of ContractSupplemental JurisdictionSummary JudgmentPrejudgment AttachmentEscrowed FundsThird-Party BeneficiaryUnion Funds
References
70
Showing 1-10 of 325 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