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
Feb 06, 1975

Sable v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

This case concerns an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 6, 1975, which denied a petitioner's application for a temporary injunction. The injunction sought to prevent the layoff of certain employees by the respondents. The layoffs were proposed due to economic factors and were conducted according to a collective bargaining agreement based on seniority. Employees over 40, through their union, alleged age discrimination, prompting the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights to seek the injunction. The court affirmed the denial, reasoning that legal remedies were not inadequate, and there was no apparent irreparable injury. The decision also noted the unlikelihood of a probable cause finding by the State Division of Human Rights, given the layoffs were pursuant to a seniority-based collective bargaining agreement.

Age DiscriminationLayoffsTemporary InjunctionSeniority RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementHuman Rights DivisionEconomic LayoffsIrreparable InjuryLegal RemediesAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Chautauqua v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n, Local 1000

The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) sought arbitration regarding layoffs and displacement rights under its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the County of Chautauqua. The County argued that the CBA's provisions on seniority-based layoffs and interdepartmental displacement conflicted with Civil Service Law § 80, asserting these issues were non-arbitrable due to public policy. After conflicting lower court decisions, the Court of Appeals held that the CBA's layoff provision, which prioritized seniority over the employer's prerogative to determine staffing needs, violated public policy and was thus not arbitrable. However, the court found no explicit statutory or public policy prohibition against interdepartmental displacement rights, allowing arbitration on that specific grievance. Consequently, the Appellate Division's order was modified, staying arbitration for the layoff grievance but compelling it for the displacement rights grievance.

Collective Bargaining AgreementLayoffsDisplacement RightsCivil Service Law § 80ArbitrabilityPublic Policy ExceptionManagement PrerogativeSeniority RightsInterdepartmental BumpingTaylor Law
References
22
Case No. SFO 0487051
Regular
Jul 22, 2008

JOSEPH DELLAFOSSE vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC., ZURICH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether Joseph Dellafosse's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on March 24, 2004, is barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination claim. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the employer had notice of the injury before layoff notice or that medical records pre-dated the layoff notice. A dissenting commissioner argued the employer failed to prove it was a post-termination claim first, and that the applicant's testimony regarding the sequence of injury notification and layoff notice was improperly discredited.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimnotice of layoffnotice of injurypreponderance of evidenceaffirmative defenseAOE/COEcredibilityworkers' compensationWCJ
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C.B.S., Inc. v. International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industry

The plaintiff, C. B. S., Inc., filed a motion for a temporary injunction to prevent arbitration demanded by Local 644, arguing that no valid arbitration agreement existed between them and that the terminations at issue were non-arbitrable layoffs. The defendant, Local 644, cross-moved to compel arbitration concerning the "arbitrary and capricious discharges" of three union members. The court found that Local 644 was indeed a signatory to and covered by the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, the court determined that whether the terminations constituted layoffs or arbitrary discharges was a matter to be decided by an arbitrator, as the contract did not unambiguously exclude layoffs from the arbitration clause. Consequently, the court denied CBS's motion for a stay of arbitration and granted Local 644's motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationLayoffsDischargesCollective Bargaining AgreementUnionEmployerTemporary InjunctionMotion to Compel ArbitrationArbitrabilityContract Interpretation
References
4
Case No. 127943/02; 103953/03
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. City of New York

District Council 37 (DC-37) brought two Article 78 proceedings (Roberts I and Roberts II) against the City of New York and its Department of Education, challenging the layoff of over 300 provisional civil service employees. DC-37 alleged violations of the Layoff Manual, improper retention of Work Employment Program (WEP) employees, unauthorized contracting out of services, and discriminatory separation of provisional employees who had passed civil service exams. The court found that the Layoff Manual did not create enforceable rights for employees. It also determined that claims regarding WEP workers and contracting out lacked sufficient legal grounds or required different remedies, characterizing these as managerial decisions. Consequently, the court dismissed both petitions, granting the City's cross-motions.

Civil Service LayoffsProvisional EmployeesArticle 78 ProceedingsUnion DisputesBudgetary ConstraintsGovernment Workforce ReductionWEP ProgramAnti-Displacement ProvisionsContracting OutPublic Sector Employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 & Village of Johnson City

This case addresses whether a 'no-layoff' clause in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Village of Johnson City and its firefighter union was subject to arbitration. The Village abolished six firefighter positions citing budgetary necessity, leading the Johnson City Professional Fire Fighters, Local 921 IAFF, to file a grievance and seek to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed lower court decisions that had compelled arbitration. The court held that the no-layoff clause was not arbitrable because it failed to explicitly, unambiguously, and comprehensively protect against job abolition due to budgetary reasons. The term 'layoff' was deemed ambiguous and undefined within the CBA, rendering the dispute non-arbitrable on public policy grounds, thereby granting the Village's application to stay arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Layoff ClausePublic PolicyBudgetary StringenciesJob SecurityMunicipal EmploymentContract InterpretationUnion GrievanceFirefighters
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maxwell MacMillan Co., Inc. v. DISTRICT 65, UAW

The plaintiff, Macmillan, sought to stay arbitration initiated by District 65 concerning employee layoffs following Macmillan's acquisition of Prentice-Hall assets. District 65 argued that the layoffs breached an agreement to use seniority in layoff decisions, stemming from Prentice-Hall's unilaterally implemented final offer after its collective bargaining agreement expired. Macmillan contended there was no formal contract to arbitrate, as District 65 had never formally accepted Prentice-Hall's offer in writing. The court, however, ruled that District 65's continuation of work after Prentice-Hall's final offer constituted acceptance by conduct, creating an enforceable interim agreement. Consequently, the court granted District 65's motion for summary judgment, denying Macmillan's, and directed the parties to proceed with arbitration.

arbitrationlabor disputecollective bargaining agreementsummary judgmentcontract formationacceptance by conductinterim agreementsuccessor liabilitylayoff grievanceunion
References
16
Case No. 127943/02
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2003

Matter of Roberts v. City of New York

This case involves two separate Article 78 proceedings (Roberts I and Roberts II) brought by District Council 37 (DC-37) against the City of New York and its Department of Education (DOE). DC-37 challenged the layoff or termination of approximately 303 provisional civil service employees of the DOE, asserting violations of the City's Layoff Procedural Manual, unlawful displacement by WEP workers, and improper contracting out of services. Petitioners also argued in Roberts II that provisional employees who passed civil service exams were unfairly separated while other provisional employees who had not passed exams were retained. Justice Lewis Bart Stone ruled that the Layoff Manual did not create enforceable rights for employees, dismissed claims regarding WEP workers as speculative without specific violations, and found no legal restriction on the City's managerial decision to contract out services. The court also concluded that DC-37 failed to demonstrate arbitrary or capricious action by the City in the separation of provisional employees, thus dismissing both petitions.

LayoffsProvisional EmployeesArticle 78 ProceedingCivil Service LawUnion ContractBudgetary ConstraintsWork Experience Program (WEP)Contracting OutJudicial ReviewPublic Sector Employment
References
8
Case No. ADJ7775170
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

JUANA NEGRETE vs. SHURFLO, HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's workers' compensation claim filed after layoff, triggering Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant met her burden of proof that she notified her employer of her injury prior to her layoff. The applicant's unrebutted testimony and supporting medical evidence demonstrated employer notice, thus overcoming the statutory bar to compensation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the applicant's claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJuana NegreteShurfloHampshire Insurance CompanyADJ7775170Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationbilateral armsbilateral elbowssleep problems
References
4
Case No. ADJ6941604
Regular
Jul 11, 2011

ARTURO PALACIOS vs. MARK WINDOW PRODUCTS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that denied applicant benefits. The Board found that the applicant's claim was not barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10) because the date of injury, as defined by the applicant's disability and knowledge of its cause, occurred after he received notice of layoff. This was based on medical opinions obtained after the layoff notice, establishing disability subsequent to the notice. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)reconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationcumulative traumanotice of layoffdate of injurysection 5412disabilityknowledge of causemedical records
References
7
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