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

Doe v. Selsky

This is a pro se prisoner action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court reinstated the plaintiff's complaint, except for a malicious prosecution claim. Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims, which included allegations of due process violations, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, mail tampering, retaliation, and conspiracy. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no constitutional violations. Specifically, the Court determined there was no denial of due process, no subjective awareness of suicide risk for deliberate indifference, no actual injury from alleged mail tampering, no constitutionally protected speech for the retaliation claim, and insufficient class-based animus for the conspiracy claim. Consequently, all of plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Civil RightsPrisoner RightsSummary JudgmentDue ProcessDeliberate IndifferenceEighth AmendmentFirst AmendmentRetaliationConspiracy42 U.S.C. § 1983
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General of US

This is an action brought by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA), and certain individuals against President Nixon and various government officials. The plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to deprive them of their rights to participate in the electoral process, and accuse defendants of illegal burglary, mail tampering, and other wrongful activities. Defendants Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mardian moved for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found no factual basis to connect these defendants with alleged tortious acts in New York, such as a burglary, a mail cover, or an FBI Disruption Program. Consequently, the court granted the motions to dismiss without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs to refile if they can establish a jurisdictional basis.

Personal JurisdictionMotion to DismissConspiracyCivil RightsGovernment SurveillanceMail TamperingBurglaryPolitical HarassmentWhite House OfficialsFBI
References
8
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. 04-09-00451-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2010

Beatrice Escamilla v. PC Mailing Services, Inc.

Beatrice Escamilla, an employee of P.C. Mailing Services, Inc. (PCMS), sustained injuries after a coworker operating a pallet jack struck her. Escamilla subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit against PCMS, alleging failures in maintaining a safe work environment or adequately warning of hazards. PCMS, operating as a nonsubscriber under Texas workers' compensation law, successfully moved for a no-evidence summary judgment at the trial court level. On appeal, Escamilla contended that she had presented sufficient evidence to support each element of her negligence claim. The appellate court conducted a de novo review, concluding that Escamilla provided more than a scintilla of evidence regarding the duty owed, the breach of that duty (attributable to PCMS through vicarious liability for its employee's actions), and the proximate causation of her injuries, which included a broken arm and a concussion. As a result, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its findings.

NegligenceEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewProximate CauseDuty of CareBreach of DutyRespondeat SuperiorPallet Jack Accident
References
15
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
Showing 1-10 of 649 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