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. 94 Civ. 2336
Regular Panel Decision

Mohamed v. Marriott International, Inc.

Ahmed Mohamed, a profoundly deaf individual, sued Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Corporation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law for wrongful discharge. Marriott moved for summary judgment, arguing Mohamed should be judicially estopped from asserting an ADA claim because he had previously applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (SSDI), stating he was unable to work. The court denied Marriott's motion. It ruled that judicial estoppel was inappropriate given the differing legal standards between ADA and SSDI, the nature of SSDI administrative determinations (paper application for a listed disability), and the policy goals of the ADA which encourage disabled individuals to seek employment. The court found ample evidence that Mohamed was able to perform the essential functions of his job.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Judicial EstoppelSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationSocial Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)New York State Human Rights LawEmployment LawQualified Individual with a DisabilityReasonable AccommodationDeafness
References
32
Case No. ADJ8377055
Regular
Dec 13, 2012

MARIA PEREZ vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

This case involves a petition for removal filed by a party in **Maria Perez v. Marriott International; Marriott Claims Services**. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued an order dismissing this petition. The dismissal is due to the petitioner's withdrawal of their request for removal. Therefore, the Board has formally closed the matter regarding the petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantMarriott InternationalMarriott Claims ServicesADJ8377055San Jose District OfficeDecision November 13 2012
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LLT International Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.

Petitioner LLT International Inc. moved to vacate an arbitration award rendered against it and in favor of Respondent MCI Telecommunications Corporation. MCI cross-moved to confirm the award. The District Court found the arbitration award to be internally inconsistent and that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the controlling agreement by failing to account for unpaid monthly retainer fees and invoices. The court rejected LLT's claims of evident partiality and bias by the arbitration panel, finding no facts to support such a conclusion. Consequently, the court granted LLT's motion to vacate, denied MCI's cross-motion, vacated the arbitration award, and remanded the matter to the arbitrators for reconsideration of both parties' claims, dismissing the action with leave to renew.

Arbitration AwardVacaturRemand to ArbitratorsContractual AgreementFederal Arbitration ActArbitrator BiasInconsistent AwardBreach of ContractCommercial DisputeJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
22
Case No. 2018-06-2392
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2020

Lackey, Jennifer v. Marriott International

Jennifer Lackey, an employee of Marriott International (Opryland Hotel), filed a claim after a workplace fall in January 2017. Marriott accepted the initial claim but later denied treatment for a breast injury Ms. Lackey alleged was caused by the fall. Ms. Lackey, who had undergone a double mastectomy and breast reconstruction in 2016, sought an order for Marriott to provide treatment. The Court, at an expedited hearing, considered conflicting medical opinions from Dr. Stephen Davis, her reconstruction surgeon, and Dr. Malcolm Marks, a plastic surgeon. The Court sided with Dr. Davis, concluding Ms. Lackey failed to prove her current breast condition primarily arose from her employment to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Therefore, her request for additional breast treatment was denied.

Workers' CompensationBreast InjuryWorkplace FallMedical CausationExpert Medical EvidenceExpedited HearingEmployee TestimonyMedical Opinion ConflictPre-existing ConditionImplant Shift
References
3
Case No. 2019-06-0652
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Riad, Jack v. Marriott International, Inc., dba Gaylord Opryland

Jack Riad, an employee of Marriott International, Inc., dba Gaylord Opryland, sought workers' compensation benefits for an ankle injury sustained on March 28, 2017. Marriott denied the claim, asserting late notice and untimely filing of the petition. The Court found that Riad provided timely actual notice to his supervisor on April 5, 2017, rejecting Marriott's notice defense. However, the Court determined that Riad filed his petition on March 29, 2019, which was past the one-year statute of limitations from the injury date. Consequently, Riad's request for medical and temporary disability benefits was denied, but the case was referred to the Compliance Program for consideration of penalties against Marriott for potential violations regarding claim reporting, compensability decisions, and failure to offer a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationAnkle InjuryTimely NoticeStatute of LimitationsEmployer PenaltiesSelf-Insured EmployerHousekeepingMaintenance WorkerMedical TreatmentFirst Report of Injury
References
3
Case No. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas International Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n International

Texas International Airlines (T.I.) filed a complaint against the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), alleging an unlawful strike/work stoppage in violation of the Railway Labor Act and seeking injunctive relief and damages. The court issued several temporary restraining orders to prevent disruptive tactics like slowdowns and excessive equipment write-ups by ALPA members. ALPA counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought to vacate the restraining orders. The court granted T.I.'s application for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood that ALPA members were engaged in concerted action to disrupt operations. However, the court denied T.I.'s application to hold ALPA in contempt, citing insufficient clear and convincing evidence to establish union liability under the 'mass action' theory or for official encouragement or ratification of violations.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionContempt of CourtWork StoppageSlowdownAirline IndustryUnion LiabilityCollective BargainingFederal Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Peekskill v. Local 456, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

This case involves an arbitration dispute between Local 456, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Union) and the City of Peekskill regarding the termination of a 22-year employee for testing positive for alcohol. After an arbitrator reinstated the employee to a different position, the City petitioned to vacate the award, which the Supreme Court granted. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the arbitration award was not irrational and did not exceed the arbitrator's authority. The court reiterated that an arbitration award can only be vacated if it violates public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds the arbitrator's power. Consequently, the original arbitration award was reinstated.

ArbitrationEmployee DisciplinePublic PolicyIrrational AwardArbitrator's AuthorityCollective Bargaining AgreementTerminationReinstatementJudicial ReviewLabor Law
References
7
Case No. 2019-06-2116
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2020

Hanna, Emad v. Marriott International, DBA Gaylord Opryland

Emad Hanna, an employee of Marriott International, sought additional medical treatment for arm, shoulder, and neck injuries sustained while working. Conflicting medical opinions arose regarding the work-relatedness of his current neck condition; Marriott's panel-selected physicians concluded it was due to pre-existing degenerative changes, while Hanna's unauthorized physician believed it was work-related. Following an expedited hearing on October 13, 2020, the Court determined that Mr. Hanna was unlikely to prove at a compensation hearing that his current neck condition was work-related, consequently denying his request for additional treatment and associated benefits.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingCausation DisputeMedical Opinion ConflictPre-existing ConditionDegenerative ChangesCervical RadiculopathyArm InjuryShoulder InjuryNeck Injury
References
1
Case No. 13 Civ. 2284
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2014

Seed Holdings, Inc. v. Jiffy International AS

This case involves a dispute over a purchase price adjustment in an asset purchase agreement between Sellers (Jiffy International AS et al.) and Buyers (Seed Holdings, Inc. et al.). An arbitration award of $4,240,059 was issued by independent accountants in favor of the Buyers. The Buyers (Seed Holdings, Inc.) sought to confirm this award in the Southern District of New York, while the Sellers sought to vacate it. The court denied the Sellers' motion to vacate and granted Seed's motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding the Sellers' objections regarding jurisdiction, timeliness of claims, accounting methodology (GAAP), and evidence consideration to be without merit.

Arbitration AwardPurchase Price AdjustmentAsset Purchase AgreementGAAP Accounting StandardsFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Subject Matter JurisdictionMotion to VacateMotion to ConfirmContract InterpretationBinding Determination
References
64
Showing 1-10 of 3,436 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