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 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 1997

In re the Claim of Vinci

The claimant was discharged from the US Postal Service for misconduct after it was discovered he and his supervisor discarded 4,106 pieces of processable mail, including first, second, and third-class mail, which resulted in a revenue loss of over $2,000. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that his employment termination was due to misconduct, disqualifying him from receiving benefits, a decision affirmed on appeal. The court found that the claimant knowingly violated established workplace procedures, rejecting his contention that his guilt should be mitigated because he acted under his supervisor's instruction, as he admitted knowing the actions were wrong. Furthermore, the court dismissed the argument that a co-worker received benefits for similar actions, distinguishing the situations by noting the co-worker was a mail clerk who believed her supervisor had discretionary power, whereas the claimant was a supervisor who knew discarding mail was improper.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductEmployment TerminationUS Postal ServiceAppellate DecisionWorkplace ProceduresSupervisor LiabilityEmployee ResponsibilityBenefit DisqualificationAppeal Board Decision
References
3
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Matter of Hans-Gaston v. Sunshine

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. NEWSPAPER AND MAIL DELIVERERS'UNION

This opinion addresses an appeal within the long-standing civil rights case initiated in 1973 by a class of private plaintiffs and the EEOC against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union and numerous publishers for discriminatory practices. The original suit resulted in a 1974 Consent Decree establishing an affirmative action program for newspaper deliverers. The current matter involves an appeal by Magazine Distributors, Inc. (MDI) and MDI Distributors, Limited Partnership, challenging a determination by court-appointed Administrator William S. Ellis. The Administrator had asserted jurisdiction over Claim 274, filed by the NMDU, which alleged that MDI and the Partnership violated the Consent Decree by refusing to hire former Imperial News Co. employees represented by the NMDU after MDI acquired Imperial's assets. MDI argued the Administrator lacked jurisdiction, contending the claim was purely about union discrimination and that prior NLRB and Bankruptcy Court decisions precluded the Administrator's review. The Court affirmed the Administrator's jurisdiction, holding that his broad authority under the Settlement Agreement extends to investigating whether an asset sale was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Consent Decree, an issue not previously litigated in other forums. The matter is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Employment DiscriminationAffirmative ActionConsent Decree EnforcementSuccessor LiabilityUnion DiscriminationJurisdiction DisputeAdministrator ReviewAsset Sale CircumventionLabor LawTitle VII
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drum v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

Drum, a former employee of The New York Post, sued his employer and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union for alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement and breach of duty of fair representation, respectively. Drum sought supplemental and disability benefits following an automobile accident in 1978, which were denied. He contended issues with the handling of his claim by the Union's counsel and subsequently retained private counsel. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Drum's failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that the action was time-barred. The court determined that while the exhaustion of administrative remedies was a disputed factual issue, the lawsuit was indeed barred by the six-month statute of limitations as established by the Supreme Court in Del Costello v. International Brotherhood, given that Drum filed his action more than a year after his claim accrued. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDisability BenefitsLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActGrievance ProceduresExhaustion of Administrative RemediesEmployee Rights
References
3
Case No. 73 Civ. 3058
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

This opinion and order addresses a long-standing civil rights action concerning alleged discrimination against minorities in the newspaper delivery industry by the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union (NMDU) and various publishers. The court reviews and affirms a determination by Administrator William S. Ellis regarding “Claim 186,” which involved violations of a 1974 Consent Decree, specifically concerning hiring procedures for Group III shapers at The New York Times. The Administrator found that the Times and NMDU violated the Settlement Agreement by unilaterally deviating from a 3/2 minority hiring ratio, implementing discriminatory application procedures, and engaging in intentional racial discrimination in offlist hiring and Group III list placement. The court also affirms the Administrator's conclusions that certain non-minority intervenors lacked standing and that back pay and attorneys' fees are appropriate remedies under the Settlement Agreement, which is deemed compliant with Title VII. The case is remanded to the Administrator for further evidentiary hearings to determine specific back pay amounts and the relative liability of The Times and the NMDU.

Employment DiscriminationAffirmative ActionConsent DecreeTitle VIIRacial DiscriminationHiring PracticesUnion PracticesAdministrator ReviewBack PayAttorneys' Fees
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) was indicted on a single count of enterprise corruption under Penal Law § 460.20, based on 81 pattern acts committed by individual union officers, members, or agents. The NMDU moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing insufficient evidence and incorrect Grand Jury instructions regarding the union's liability. The court found that while a labor union, as an unincorporated association, can be criminally liable under New York law, and enterprise corruption is an appropriate charge, the Grand Jury instructions were critically flawed. Specifically, the instructions failed to adequately define terms like 'actual participation,' 'actual authorization,' and 'ratification after actual knowledge.' Furthermore, the court determined that New York's common-law no-agency rule for unincorporated associations, as established in Martin v Curran, requires proof that every union member individually authorized or ratified the criminal acts, a more stringent standard than what was presented. The court also rejected the applicability of Labor Law § 807 (6) as a general standard for union criminal liability, as it is limited to injunctions during labor disputes, which was not the context for most of the alleged acts. Consequently, the indictment against the NMDU was dismissed, with leave for the prosecution to re-present the case to another Grand Jury.

Enterprise CorruptionLabor Union LiabilityGrand Jury InstructionsCriminal LawUnincorporated AssociationsPenal Law InterpretationVicarious LiabilityRacketeeringOrganized CrimeLabor Racketeering
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2007

NYP Holdings, Inc. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

NYP Holdings, Inc. (the Post) sued Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), its President Ronald O’Keefe, and John Does Nos. 1-20 under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The Post sought an injunction to prevent the NMDU from engaging in work stoppages during negotiations with another union, Local 94. This request stemmed from an incident where NMDU drivers refused to deliver newspapers, with the NMDU citing safety concerns and the Post alleging a sympathy strike. An arbitrator issued a 'status quo order' directing drivers to return to work with increased security. The Court denied the Post’s application for a preliminary injunction, interpreting the arbitrator's order as limited to the specific events of March 1 and finding no sufficient evidence of a 'pattern of strike activity' by the NMDU to warrant prospective injunctive relief under the Norris LaGuardia Act exceptions.

Labor DisputeInjunctionNorris-LaGuardia ActLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitration AwardSympathy StrikePreliminary InjunctionFederal Court
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union v. United Magazine Co.

This case addresses the applicable statute of limitations for the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN) and claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The plaintiff, Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union (NMDU), representing employees, sued United Magazine Company, MDI Corp., and individuals Robert B. Cohen and Ronald E. Scherer, alleging improper plant closure without notice and failure to contribute to welfare and pension funds. The Court ruled that the WARN Act claim was time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations found in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). However, the motions to dismiss the ERISA claims were denied, as the complaint sufficiently alleged MDI Corp. was a 'successor' to Imperial News Co. and that individual officers could be liable under an 'alter ego' theory. Motions regarding subject matter jurisdiction, failure to join an indispensable party, and judgment on the pleadings were also denied.

WARN ActERISAStatute of LimitationsPlant ClosingMass LayoffCollective Bargaining AgreementSuccessor LiabilityAlter Ego TheoryFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 656 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