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

Crocco v. Local 333, United Marine Division, International Longshoremen's Ass'n

Augustine Crocco, a former President of Local 1294, International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL-CIO, sued several labor unions under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), alleging he was improperly disciplined. Crocco claimed that an unfair disciplinary hearing and a recommendation for his removal from office and disqualification from future elections led to his defeat in a subsequent election, even though no formal discipline was imposed. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no actual 'discipline' occurred under LMRDA § 101(a)(5). The court examined the definition of 'discipline' and precedent but found no evidence of bad faith prosecution by the unions. Ultimately, the federal court ruled it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the LMRDA claims because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, and thus the state court from which the case was removed had no original jurisdiction. The LMRDA claims were dismissed, and the remaining state law claims were remanded to the Supreme Court of New York for Rensselaer County.

Labor Union LawUnion Member RightsInternal Union DisciplineSummary Judgment MotionSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal PreemptionLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActWrongful Discipline ClaimsInter-union ConflictRemand to State Court
References
18
Case No. 83 Civ. 4932
Regular Panel Decision

Caloumeno v. McGowan

This case, brought under the LMRDA, involves plaintiff George Caloumeno and several defendants. Caloumeno moved for summary judgment on his first and seventh causes of action, related to fair hearing and breach of contract. Defendants counter-moved for summary judgment to add Metropolitan Region II as a counterclaim plaintiff, on their counterclaims for conversion, and to dismiss Caloumeno’s LMRDA claims. The court denied the motion to join Metropolitan Region II. It also denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the fair hearing claims due to unresolved issues of material fact. The court dismissed the breach of contract claim as not actionable under LMRDA per se, and denied summary judgment on the LMRDA free speech and equal rights claims, citing unresolved issues of motivation and intent. Ultimately, the court denied all outstanding motions for summary judgment, stating that the remaining claims (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, and 17) must proceed to trial.

LMRDASummary JudgmentFair Hearing RightsBreach of ContractFree Speech RightsEqual RightsUnion DisciplineInternal Union AffairsConversionUnbiased Tribunal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santo v. Laborers' International Union

This case addresses a dispute between union members and their labor organizations concerning a dues increase implemented during a trusteeship. Plaintiffs challenged the unilateral dues increase by a trustee under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the union's constitution. The court found that the trustee's action violated the LMRDA's provision requiring member participation in dues decisions, even under a trusteeship. However, the claim based on the union constitution was dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the LMRDA claim and to the defendants on the union constitution claim, leaving the issue of damages unresolved.

LMRDAUnion DuesTrusteeshipLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentExhaustion of RemediesUnion ConstitutionVoting RightsDemocratic GovernanceLabor Unions
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McConnell v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local 445

Plaintiff William McConnell filed a lawsuit against Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 445, alleging the Union retaliated against him for his criticism of their contract policies. McConnell claimed he was removed from hiring lists and faced false charges leading to his dismissal as a business agent. He asserted violations of his free speech and due process rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). Although his initial grievance with the NLRB was dismissed, the court found it did not bar the LMRDA action. However, the court ultimately granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that McConnell's LMRDA claims were time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations applicable to unfair labor practices.

LMRDA claimsUnion retaliationFree speech rights (Union)Due process (Union discipline)Statute of limitationsNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Unfair labor practicesExclusive NLRB jurisdictionFair representation suitsLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
References
19
Case No. 97 Civ. 7455(SS)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1998

Schepis v. LOCAL UNION NO. 17, UNITED BROTH.

The plaintiff, Benedetto Schepis, a former union official, sought reimbursement of legal defense costs from Local Union No. 17 and District Council of New York City after his criminal conviction was overturned. The Union removed the case from New York State Supreme Court to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the LMRDA and LMRA. Schepis moved to remand the action, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion to remand, finding no federal cause of action for reimbursement under the LMRDA or LMRA, and explicitly noting that LMRDA preserves state law claims. The court also awarded Schepis costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred due to the improper removal.

Removal jurisdictionFederal questionLabor-Management Disclosure and Reporting ActLabor Management Relations ActUnion fiduciary dutiesState law claimsWell-pleaded complaint ruleComplete preemptionAttorney's feesRemand
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farkas v. Rumore

Union members and plaintiff Lawrence Farkas brought an action against Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, and its president Anthony Rumore. Plaintiffs alleged unlawful ratification of a collective bargaining agreement by the union and employer participation in the misconduct, under the LMRDA and LMRA. Plaintiff Farkas also claimed wrongful discharge by the employer and mishandling of his termination arbitration by the union. The court denied summary judgment for the LMRDA claims against the union regarding contract ratification but granted it for the LMRDA claim against Anthony Rumore. Summary judgment was also granted to Coca-Cola on the LMRA ratification claim. Furthermore, Farkas's individual claims for duty of fair representation against the union and breach of collective bargaining agreement against Coca-Cola were dismissed due to his failure to exhaust contractual remedies.

Labor LawLMRDALMRAUnion RightsCollective BargainingContract RatificationDuty of Fair RepresentationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District Council No. 9 v. Reich

This case addresses whether a New York state court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought under the 'bill of rights' provisions of the federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The defendant, an unnamed former union financial secretary, brought a third-party complaint against several union entities and individuals, alleging breach of duty of fair representation, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, LMRDA violations, and attorneys' fees. The court dismissed the claims for breach of duty of fair representation and slander as time-barred, and intentional infliction of emotional distress and harassment for failing to meet legal standards or not being recognized causes of action in New York. Crucially, the court found that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over LMRDA 'bill of rights' claims, dismissing this cause of action. Consequently, all third-party causes of action were dismissed.

Subject Matter JurisdictionLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLMRDA Bill of RightsState Court JurisdictionExclusive Federal JurisdictionDuty of Fair RepresentationSlander ClaimIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressHarassment (Cause of Action)Statute of Limitations
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Haynes

The plaintiffs, Eunice Rodriguez and Nicholas Mancuso, members of Local 237's Executive Board, sued Local 237, its president Carl Haynes, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). They alleged interference with their union election campaign, misappropriation of union resources for Haynes' re-election, unequal treatment, and suppression of free speech under the LMRDA, as well as improper disciplinary action and failure to convene a trial board under the LMRA, and misappropriation of union assets under New York Labor Law. Defendants moved to dismiss, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction for LMRDA claims, failure to exhaust internal union remedies for LMRA claims, and non-compliance with statutory prerequisites for New York Labor Law claims. The court granted the defendants' motion in its entirety, concluding that Local 237 was not a "labor organization" under the LMRDA and that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their internal union remedies.

Union disputeElection campaignMisappropriation of assetsLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA)Exhaustion of remediesSubject matter jurisdictionInternal union proceduresMotion to dismissPublic sector union
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cotter v. Owens

Michael Cotter, an employee of Consolidated Edison and a union shop steward, filed a complaint against Local 1-2 of the Utility Workers of America and its business manager, Francis R. Owens, seeking reinstatement to the union's Nuclear Safety Committee. Cotter alleged his removal was retaliatory for his opposition to union management and a prior lawsuit against Con Edison, thus infringing his rights under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting Cotter's removal was due to his termination from Con Ed or, alternatively, was permissible under the Supreme Court's Finnegan v. Leu decision, even if retaliatory. The court granted summary judgment, finding no evidence for a § 411(a)(4) LMRDA claim and ruling that Cotter, as a policymaking official on the Safety Committee, could be removed by union leadership whose views were incompatible with his, consistent with the LMRDA's aim to ensure democratic union governance and leadership responsiveness to membership mandate.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActUnion Internal AffairsFreedom of SpeechRetaliationSummary JudgmentUnion Official RemovalNuclear SafetyUnion PoliticsWhistleblower ProtectionMembership Rights
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medford v. Civil Serv. Emps. Ass'n, Inc.

This putative class action involved plaintiffs suing the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 881, its president Jarvis T. Brown, the Town of Oyster Bay, and others for alleged violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and New York state law. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court granted the motions to dismiss the LMRDA claims, ruling that Local 881 is a public sector union representing only Town of Oyster Bay employees, and therefore not subject to the LMRDA. The Court explicitly rejected the plaintiffs' argument that certain union officers, despite performing only union-related work, transformed Local 881 into a mixed union, as these individuals remained public employees paid by the Town. Consequently, lacking federal subject matter jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice, advising them to pursue these claims in state court.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActPublic Sector Labor LawUnion JurisdictionFederal CourtsMotions to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionCollective BargainingPublic EmployeesNew York State Law
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 65 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