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. 79 Civ. 1536, 79 Civ. 1570
Regular Panel Decision

Iberia Air Lines v. National Mediation Board

Iberia Air Lines moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that it lawfully changed employee terms on February 23, 1979, after negotiations with the IAM deadlocked. The core issue was whether the IAM's request for mediation to the National Mediation Board (NMB) was timely under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) Section 6, which mandates a ten-day window for such requests after conference termination. The NMB's offices were intermittently closed due to a federal holiday and a snowstorm, and the IAM's formal request was received after the ten-day period. The court granted Iberia's motion, ruling that the RLA's plain language allows carriers to implement changes if mediation services are not invoked within the specified ten days, rejecting the government's arguments for an extended status quo or tolling of the period due to unforeseen closures or a mere telephone call.

Railway Labor ActNational Mediation BoardCollective BargainingLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentUnilateral ChangeStatus QuoTimelinessStatutory InterpretationAir Carrier
References
9
Case No. 21 MC 97
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2009

In Re September 11 Litigation

District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein accepted the mediator's report concerning the extensive settlements achieved in the wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits arising from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. These cases, filed under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (ATSSSA) in the Southern District of New York, involved victims and their families suing airlines and aviation-related companies. Mediator Sheila L. Birnbaum, assisted by Thomas E. Fox, successfully resolved 72 out of 95 cases through a meticulous mediation process that addressed complex legal issues, sensitive security information (SSI) discovery, and varying state laws governing damages. The court's order highlights the challenges faced in these mass torts, including balancing claimant equity, ensuring fair contingent fees, and navigating the unique circumstances of the litigation, ultimately leading to approximately $500 million in aggregate settlements.

September 11th AttacksWrongful DeathPersonal Injury LitigationMass TortsMediationSettlement NegotiationsAir Transportation Safety and System Stabilization ActVictim Compensation FundSensitive Security InformationDamages Discovery
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Transportation Union v. DELAWARE AND HUDSON RAILWAY, CO.

This case addresses a labor dispute between the United Transportation Union (UTU), Delaware & Hudson Railway Company (D & H), and the National Mediation Board (NMB) under the Railway Labor Act. UTU sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting its right to self-help (strike) after purportedly terminating collective bargaining negotiations with D & H. The NMB intervened, attempting to compel mediation, which UTU resisted, claiming NMB lacked jurisdiction due to proper termination of conferences. The Court, denying UTU's motion for summary judgment, clarified that while mutual termination is not required, an unequivocal termination and good faith bargaining are prerequisites for exercising self-help. Ultimately, the court found genuine issues of material fact existed regarding both the unequivocal termination of conferences and UTU's good faith bargaining efforts, thus precluding summary judgment.

Railway Labor ActCollective BargainingNegotiation TerminationSelf-HelpMediationSummary JudgmentGood Faith BargainingLabor DisputeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Canada v. National Mediation Board

Plaintiff Air Canada sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the National Mediation Board (NMB) from conducting a representation election among its passenger service employees, alleging several violations of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The court denied Air Canada's application, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to review most of the NMB's alleged errors and that Air Canada failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits for the one reviewable claim (failure to investigate). The court also found an insufficient showing of irreparable harm, noting that staying the election would cause greater damage than allowing it to proceed. The NMB's decisions on employee eligibility, cut-off dates, and craft/class determinations were generally upheld or deemed outside the court's review scope.

Temporary Restraining OrderPreliminary InjunctionNational Mediation BoardRailway Labor ActRepresentation ElectionJudicial Review LimitsIrreparable HarmCraft or Class DeterminationEmployee EligibilityElection Cut-off Date
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

British Airways Board v. National Mediation Board

This action concerns a representation dispute among British Airways Board (BA) employees under the Railway Labor Act, specifically regarding the National Mediation Board's (NMB) certification of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM). BA challenged three NMB determinations: the definition of the craft or class of workers, the May 14, 1978 eligibility cut-off date, and the decision to tally certain late ballots. The court granted leave for employee Barbara McCloskey to intervene and for BA to amend its complaint. However, the court found its subject matter jurisdiction over NMB decisions to be very narrow, limited to instances of constitutional dimension or gross statutory violations. The court concluded that BA's claims did not meet this high standard, and therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint.

Railway Labor ActRepresentation DisputeNational Mediation BoardJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentCraft or Class DeterminationElection EligibilityBallot TallyingInterventionStanding
References
20
Case No. ADJ10405221
Regular
Feb 03, 2023

CARMEN MARTINEZ vs. SAMBRAILO PACKAGING, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant insurer sought reconsideration of an order requiring them to pay $540.00 for interpreter services. Following mediation, the defendant and the interpreter, Victor Fridman, reached a settlement for $250.00. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the original order and approved the agreed-upon settlement. The Board commended the parties for resolving the dispute through mediation.

ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJInterpreter servicesMediation conferenceSettlement agreementRescindApproveDefendant's counsel
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Marin v. Constitution Realty, LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the division of attorneys' fees among Sheryl Menkes (appellant), David B. Golomb, and Jeffrey A. Manheimer (respondents). Menkes, attorney of record for plaintiffs in a personal injury action, had agreements with both Golomb and Manheimer for fee sharing. The primary dispute concerned Golomb's share, contingent on whether the case settled at a specific mediation session (12% fee) or later (40% fee). The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the contract unambiguous that the mediation session concluded on a specific date, entitling Golomb to the higher fee, and that Manheimer was entitled to 20% as per his agreement. The court rejected Menkes's arguments based on contract interpretation and professional conduct rules.

Attorney's FeesContract InterpretationMediation AgreementFee DisputePersonal Injury ActionQuantum MeruitProfessional ConductNew York LawSettlement NegotiationsStructured Settlement
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2006

McNamara v. Tourneau, Inc.

In this employment discrimination case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), pro se plaintiff Charles McNamara and defendant Tourneau, Inc. reached a settlement during court-ordered mediation, signing a stipulation that included "Standard 21 day language." McNamara later refused to sign a formal agreement, alleging misrepresentation during mediation and asserting his right to revoke. Tourneau moved to enforce the settlement, arguing it was a binding contract. The Court found the stipulation to be a fully binding preliminary agreement. However, due to ambiguity in the "Standard 21 day language"—which pertained to the ADEA's 21-day consideration and 7-day revocation periods—and considering extrinsic evidence, including Tourneau's own proposed formal agreement, the Court concluded that McNamara retained the right to revoke prior to signing the formal contract. Consequently, Tourneau's motion to enforce the settlement was denied, and the case was reinstated, as McNamara's revocation was deemed timely.

Employment DiscriminationADA ClaimADEA WaiverSettlement EnforcementContract AmbiguityMediation ProgramPro Se PlaintiffRevocation RightsOWBPA ComplianceNew York Contract Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of Sales Representatives, initiated an action against defendants Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. and Cellular Sales of New York, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. They claimed misclassification as independent contractors, which led to a deprivation of guaranteed compensation, including minimum wage and overtime. Defendants responded with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and alternatively, to compel mediation/arbitration based on clauses in the sales agreements. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming its power to adjudicate FLSA claims. However, it granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, determining that the mediation clauses were valid, unwaived, and that FLSA claims are arbitrable under federal law, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. All other pending motions, including plaintiffs' request for conditional collective action certification, were subsequently denied as moot.

FLSALabor LawMisclassificationIndependent ContractorCollective ActionArbitrationMediationSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flight Engineers' International Ass'n v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The Flight Engineers' International Association (FEIA) sued Pan American World Airways, Inc. (PAWA) and Pan American Corporation (Pan Am Corp.), alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act and their collective bargaining agreement. FEIA claimed defendants refused to arbitrate a contract dispute stemming from the acquisition of Ransome Airlines (later Pan American Express, Inc.) by Pan Am Corp. FEIA contended that PAWA and Pan Am Corp. failed to utilize FEIA-represented Operations Training Instructors (OTIs) to train Ransome personnel. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the dispute involved representational issues falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board. The court, citing precedent from IUFA v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., found that even a claim for contractual damages implicitly involves representational questions regarding work assignment. Concluding the case was indistinguishable from IUFA, the court held that representational disputes are exclusively within the National Mediation Board's purview, thus granting the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Railway Labor ActSubject Matter JurisdictionRepresentational DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNational Mediation BoardArbitrationMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentAirline IndustryUnion Dispute
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 56 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