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

West v. Fina Oil & Chemical Co.

Plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in a Texas state court, alleging wrongful discharge and discrimination under Texas Labor Code section 451.001 after filing workers' compensation claims. The Defendant subsequently removed the case to federal court, asserting that the Plaintiff's claims were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), necessitating the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Plaintiff responded with a motion to remand, contending that the claims were not inextricably linked to the CBA and that workers' compensation matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts. The court, referencing precedents like Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. and Jones v. Roadway Express, Inc., determined that retaliatory discharge claims under state workers' compensation laws are typically independent of CBAs and not subject to LMRA section 301 preemption, as they focus on the employer's motive rather than CBA interpretation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the Plaintiff's complaint did not rely on the CBA, and the central issue of retaliatory motive did not require CBA interpretation, thereby lacking removal jurisdiction and granting the motion to remand the case back to state court.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeLabor Management Relations ActPreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal JurisdictionRemandTexas Labor CodeLMRA Section 301Fifth Circuit Precedent
References
9
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

Amstar Corp. v. United Sugar Workers Local 9

In this action under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, the plaintiff, a Delaware corporation operating a sugar refinery in Brooklyn, sought a preliminary injunction to restrain the defendant union from striking in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. The union engaged in a two-day walkout, asserting the plaintiff breached a 'no reprisal' commitment made during contract negotiations. The court found a binding agreement in effect that mandated arbitration for disputes and included a 'no-strike' clause. The union's attempt to rescind the contract was rejected. The court concluded that the dispute was arbitrable and that injunctive relief was warranted under equitable principles to preserve the integrity of the arbitration process and prevent further injury. The application for a preliminary injunction was granted, restraining future strikes related to the dispute and directing the parties to submit the matter to arbitration.

Labor Management Relations ActNorris-LaGuardia ActPreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationUnion DisputeContract InterpretationIrreparable InjuryMootness
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Umphrey v. Fina Oil & Chemical Co.

Mark Umphrey, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit in Texas state court against Fina Oil & Chemical Company (Fina), alleging violations of the Texas Labor Code. Umphrey claimed Fina discriminated against him for pursuing workers' compensation claims after injuries in 1989 and 1991, specifically citing a 'letter of concern' regarding absenteeism as discriminatory. Fina removed the case to federal court, asserting that the claim was preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) as it would require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The federal court, however, determined that Umphrey's claims arose from a company letter independent of the CBA and did not necessitate a CBA interpretation. Consequently, the court found Section 301 preemption inapplicable and granted Umphrey's motion to remand the case to the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

Worker's Compensation DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeFederal PreemptionLabor Management Relations Act (LMRA)Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Motion to RemandFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimTexas Labor CodeAbsenteeism
References
15
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

Regan v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.

Plaintiffs Rishe and Regan sued District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and eight individual representatives, alleging a breach of a collective bargaining agreement for condoning their wrongful discharge and termination of employment without proper cause. The original complaints, based on diversity of citizenship, were dismissed. Amended complaints asserted jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and Section 102 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The court denied District 50's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding a valid cause of action under Section 301. However, the motion of the individual Representatives to dismiss was granted, as Section 301(b) precludes enforcing judgments against a labor organization's members individually.

Labor Management Relations ActLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful DischargeUnion Duty to EnforceJurisdictionMotion to DismissLabor Organization LiabilityIndividual Representative LiabilityBreach of Contract
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Newmark & Lewis, Inc. v. Local 814, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Newmark & Lewis (plaintiff) sought to remand its action to state court, challenging Local 814's (defendant) demand for arbitration. Local 814 had removed the case to federal court, asserting the dispute over a collective bargaining agreement fell under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Newmark & Lewis argued no such agreement existed with Local 814 and its state court petition lacked a federal question. The court denied the remand motion, ruling it had federal jurisdiction under Section 301 to determine if Newmark & Lewis was a 'joint employer' and therefore bound by the collective bargaining agreement, noting Section 301's complete pre-emption doctrine.

Federal JurisdictionRemovalRemandWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleLMRA Section 301Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationJoint EmployerFederal PreemptionLabor Dispute
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Laundries Corp. v. Craft

This case involves Consolidated Laundries Corp., the petitioner, and its former employee, Craft, the respondent. Consolidated sought to enforce a restrictive covenant agreement against Craft, which prohibited him from serving former customers or engaging in the laundry business within his former route for one year after termination. Both parties were subject to collective bargaining agreements with the Amalgamated Laundry Workers Joint Board and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Consolidated initiated arbitration, which Craft challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. The court examined whether it had jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act or 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The court concluded that Section 301 did not apply because the dispute concerned uniquely personal rights, an individual could not invoke Section 301, and a motion to stay arbitration was not a suit for contract violation under the act. Furthermore, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 was denied as the claim did not directly arise under an act regulating commerce like the National Labor Relations Act. Consequently, the motions to remand the proceedings to the New York Supreme Court were granted due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Labor LawArbitrationRestrictive CovenantEmployment ContractFederal JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementRemandDistrict Court
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaye v. Orange Regional Medical Center

Plaintiff Gerald Kaye, individually and on behalf of a purported class, sued his employer, Orange Regional Medical Center, alleging that he and other respiratory therapists were not compensated for work performed during rest periods and meal breaks, leading to unpaid wages and overtime, in violation of New York Labor Law. Defendant moved to dismiss the claims, arguing they were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) due to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The court denied Defendant's motion, ruling that Plaintiff's state law claims were independent of the CBA and did not require its substantial interpretation, therefore not preempted by the LMRA. The court also found that Plaintiff was not required to exhaust the CBA's grievance and arbitration procedures.

Wage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMeal Break ViolationsRest Period ViolationsLMRA PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementNew York Labor LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Motion to DismissClass Action
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Burks

Alien W. Burks, an employee of Metro, was terminated and subsequently reinstated with a thirty-day disciplinary suspension and back-pay, as per a collective bargaining agreement. Burks later filed a lawsuit against Metro, seeking judicial assistance to restore his pre-disciplinary status and compensation for economic loss, but did not name the Union as a party. Metro moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, contending that Burks' claims implicated the collective bargaining agreement under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and required the Union to be joined within a six-month limitations period. The trial court denied Metro's motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that while proving a breach of the duty of fair representation by the Union is a prerequisite for a claim against the employer under LMRA, the Union does not necessarily have to be named as a party in the lawsuit.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementLMRANLRAHybrid ActionDuty of Fair RepresentationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsWrongful TerminationAppellate Review
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 4,911 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