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

State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Communications Workers of America/Graduate Employees Union (CWA) petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to be certified as the bargaining representative for graduate and teaching assistants at State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. Initially, PERB's Director dismissed the petition, concluding that these assistants were not 'public employees' under the Taylor Law, applying a balancing test. PERB subsequently rejected this balancing test, establishing a new standard focused on the existence of a regular and substantial employment relationship not explicitly excluded by the Legislature. Under this new standard, PERB reversed the Director's decision, determining that graduate and teaching assistants are covered employees and constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. SUNY then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, arguing legal error in PERB's adopted test and that collective bargaining for academic issues violated public policy. The court upheld PERB's interpretation as reasonable and legally permissible, affirming PERB's determination and dismissing SUNY's petition.

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weiss v. Legal Aid Society

Plaintiff, an attorney formerly employed by The Legal Aid Society, initiated this action seeking wage step increases. The case was initially removed to federal court under Section 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, based on an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement. However, through subsequent proceedings and clarifications by plaintiff's counsel, it became evident that the claim was predicated solely on an alleged independent oral promise made by the Society to individual attorneys, rather than a contract between an employer and a labor organization. The court concluded that Section 301 jurisdiction only applies to violations of agreements between an employer and a labor organization, and thus, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the individual oral contract claim. Consequently, the action was dismissed.

Labour LawSubject Matter JurisdictionCollective Bargaining AgreementOral ContractWage DisputesDistrict CourtEmployment LawNational Labor Relations ActFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. LAO 0722567
Significant

Daniel Milbauer, Applicant vs. Erez Boostan, Uninsured Employers Fund

The Appeals Board affirms a judge's finding on the correct legal identity of an uninsured employer and establishes procedures to ensure the Uninsured Employers Fund (UEF) actively assists in identifying employers in future cases to avoid significant delays.

Uninsured Employers FundEn Banc DecisionJurisdictional IssueEmployer IdentityService of ProcessSubstantial EvidenceGood Faith EffortProvisional AppearanceDirector of Industrial RelationsLabor Code Section 3716(d)(4)
References
13
Case No. LAO 0722567
En Banc
Dec 18, 2003

Daniel Milbauer vs. Erez Boostan dba American Runner Attorney Service, Uninsured Employers Fund

The Appeals Board affirms a WCJ's finding on the correct legal identity of an uninsured employer and establishes procedures to ensure the Uninsured Employers Fund's (UEF) early and active participation in identifying such employers in future cases.

UEFEmployer IdentityService of ProcessJurisdictionReconsiderationEn Banc DecisionLabor CodeUninsured EmployerIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability
References
13
Case No. ADJ10108024
Regular
Jun 21, 2018

SUSAN N. GALLEGO vs. IHSS - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Legally Uninsured, Administered by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration to correct the employer's identity. The Board amended the Findings of Fact to accurately reflect the employer as "IHSS - California Department of Social Services, Legally Uninsured, Administered by York Risk Services Group." This amendment supersedes the previous identification of the employer. Otherwise, the original Findings of Fact remain affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactLegally UninsuredYork Risk Services GroupJointly EmployedIHSSCalifornia Department of Social ServicesAdministrative Law JudgeDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00228 [201 AD3d 1164]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Debora (Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns an appeal by Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS) from decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board determined that Fausto Debora, a linguist, was an employee of LIS and that LIS was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the existence of an employment relationship. The court noted that LIS exercised sufficient control over its linguists by screening qualifications, negotiating pay, and assigning jobs, despite some flexibility offered to the linguists. The decision also dismissed LIS's argument regarding Department of Labor guidelines, stating no inconsistency was found with established common-law tests for employment.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLinguist ServicesControl TestDepartment of Labor GuidelinesEmployer LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halfond v. Legal Aid Soc. of City of New York

Plaintiffs Lawrence Halfond, Michael Richstone, and Peter Zullo, all supervisors at Legal Aid, were fired or demoted in January 1995 and subsequently filed an age discrimination lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Legal Aid sought summary judgment, asserting that the employment actions were necessitated by budget cuts. The court denied Legal Aid's motion, finding that the plaintiffs successfully established a prima facie case of age discrimination. This was supported by statistical evidence showing a significant disparity in the treatment of older versus younger supervisors, management comments suggesting a preference for younger employees, and a notable lack of clear, specific, and documented non-discriminatory reasons for the adverse actions from Legal Aid's committees.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Summary Judgment MotionPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentReduction in ForceStatistical EvidencePretextEmployer's BurdenExplanations for TerminationDocumentary Evidence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1989

Quinn v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found that the claimant was not discriminated against by their employer. The claimant was terminated due to a work-related disability, and subsequently rejected rehire offers from the employer, despite no decrease in salary. When the claimant later sought reemployment, the employer refused. The court found that the claimant failed to prove discrimination or retaliation, and that the employer was under no contractual or legal obligation to rehire the claimant after termination. Therefore, the decision affirming that the employer did not discriminate was upheld.

Workers' CompensationDiscriminationRetaliationReinstatementTerminationEmploymentDisabilitySubstantial EvidenceRehireBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schmeiser v. Wnuk

The claimant sustained an injury during her employment with an uninsured employer. The central legal question was whether her employment constituted 'covered employment' under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, particularly concerning the definition of a 'domestic worker' in section 3 (subd. 1, group 12). The employer contended the claimant was a governess and thus not a domestic worker. However, the claimant testified to regularly performing household duties such as cooking, washing dishes, and cleaning, presenting a question of fact. The Workmen’s Compensation Board resolved this factual dispute in favor of the claimant, finding her employment to be covered. The appeal from this decision and award was unanimously affirmed, with the court finding no prejudice to the appellant.

Workers' CompensationCovered EmploymentDomestic WorkerHouseworkUninsured EmployerAppealAffirmationGovernessQuestion of FactEmployment Definition
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 12,754 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