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
Mar 07, 2008

Prost v. Association of Flight Attendants

Plaintiffs, U.S. Airways flight attendants, sued the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) and its President, Patricia A. Friend. They alleged that defendants misrepresented MidAtlantic Airways' corporate structure as a separate entity rather than a division of U.S. Airways, to deny them employment rights under their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Plaintiffs claimed breach of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the fair representation claims were time-barred and the RICO claim lacked sufficient pleading for "enterprise." The court granted the motion, dismissing the fair representation claims as time-barred (accruing in December 2002 or at latest early 2005) and the RICO claim due to a deficient pleading of the "enterprise" element.

Duty of fair representationRailway Labor ActRICOCollective bargaining agreementStatute of limitationsMotion to dismissAssociation-in-factLabor unionFlight attendantsCorporate structure
References
32
Case No. 89 Civ. 1655 (LLS)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1990

Fenderson v. INDEP. FED. OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

Plaintiffs, a group of flight attendants including new hires and crossovers, filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (IFFA), its officers, and Trans World Airlines (TWA). They alleged that amendments to IFFA's Constitution and Bylaws, specifically a one-year 'education and orientation period' and a $250 initiation/reinstatement fee, violated Section 2, Eleventh (a) of the Railway Labor Act by imposing conditions on membership not generally applicable to all members. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs regarding the one-year education and orientation period, finding it violated the RLA's requirement that membership be available on the same terms to all dues-paying employees. However, the court denied summary judgment concerning the $250 fee, concluding that it was uniformly applied and fell within the RLA's definition of permissible 'initiation fees' and 'reinstatement fees'.

Railway Labor ActUnion Security ClauseFlight AttendantsUnion Membership RightsInitiation FeesReinstatement FeesSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementDiscriminationVoting Rights
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The Independent Union of Flight Attendants (IUFA) filed an action against Pan American World Airways, Inc. (Pan Am) under the Railway Labor Act, seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce an April 1, 1985 agreement or, alternatively, to maintain the status quo. A key dispute arose over 'Item 7' of the agreement, regarding pending lawsuits and grievances, with the union claiming its exclusion and Pan Am insisting on its inclusion. The National Mediation Board (NMB) is currently reviewing this interpretive dispute. The court denied the preliminary injunction, reasoning that Pan Am was legally entitled to engage in self-help after exhausting statutory procedures, and that the union failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The balance of hardships was found to favor Pan Am, and the action was stayed pending the NMB's definitive ruling.

Railway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementSelf-HelpStatus QuoNational Mediation BoardIrreparable HarmBalance of HardshipsLabor DisputeUnion Rights
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fenderson v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants

Plaintiffs, Gregory Fenderson, James Summers, and Carmelo Torre, are flight attendants for Trans World Airlines (TWA) and moved for partial summary judgment against TWA and the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (IFFA). They alleged violations of section 2, Eleventh (a) of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) concerning IFFA's union security clause. The plaintiffs challenged two amendments to the IFFA's Constitution and Bylaws: a twelve-month "education and orientation period" where new members couldn't vote, and a $250 initiation/readmission fee. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs regarding the education and orientation period, finding it violated the RLA by not offering membership on the same terms and conditions to all. However, the court denied summary judgment concerning the $250 fee, concluding it was uniformly applied and encompassed by "initiation fees" as per the RLA.

Railway Labor ActUnion Security ClauseFlight AttendantsSummary JudgmentUnion Membership RightsInitiation FeesReinstatement FeesVoting RightsLabor OrganizationsCollective Bargaining
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parry v. Tompkins County

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Criminal Bar Ass'n v. Newton

Plaintiffs, including Coastal Oil New York, Inc. and two criminal defense bar associations, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three New York State Justices, alleging that the New York County District Attorney illicitly influenced the assignment of judges to "high-profile" criminal cases, thereby violating their due process rights. The alleged scheme involved the D.A. selecting "pro-prosecution" judges for initial ex parte orders, then recommending them for grand jury duties and subsequent trials. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing mootness and lack of standing. The District Court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that Coastal Oil's claim was moot because the challenged judge had recused himself, and the remaining bar associations and individual plaintiffs lacked standing as they had not suffered a concrete injury. Consequently, the amended complaint was dismissed.

Due ProcessJudicial AssignmentCriminal ProcedureStandingMootnessFederal Question Jurisdiction42 U.S.C. Section 1983District AttorneyJudicial Bias AllegationsRecusal
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1981

Lanza v. Quebec & Ontario Transportation Co.

A longshoreman (plaintiff) was injured in 1977 while working on the defendant's vessel. He subsequently settled a federal workers' compensation claim with his employer's carrier in 1978; however, no formal compensation order was filed, although a claims examiner's letter acknowledged the settlement. In 1979, the plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant, who moved for summary judgment contending the complaint was time-barred under 33 U.S.C. § 933(b), which mandates third-party actions within six months of settlement. Special Term initially denied the defendant's motion, but the appellate court reversed this decision. Citing a precedent, the court held that the claims examiner's letter functioned as an 'award in a compensation order,' thereby triggering the statute of limitations, and rendering the plaintiff's action time-barred.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationLongshoremanFederal LawThird-Party ActionSettlementCompensation OrderAppellate ReviewReversal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Northwest Airlines Corp. v. Ass'n of Flight Attendants-CWA (In Re Northwest Airlines Corp.)

The case involves Northwest Airlines Corporation (Debtors) in Chapter 11 bankruptcy seeking to reject a collective bargaining agreement with its flight attendants, represented by the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA). Following court authorization for rejection and the failure of two tentative agreements to be ratified by the union membership, the Debtors unilaterally implemented new terms and conditions of employment. In response, AFA threatened strike activity, prompting the Debtors to seek a preliminary injunction to prevent the strike. AFA also moved for an order requiring the Debtors to implement the terms of a more recent, but unratified, agreement. The Court denied the Debtors' motion for a preliminary injunction, citing the Norris-La Guardia Act's anti-injunction provisions and finding that the RLA did not provide a basis to enjoin the strike under these circumstances, especially after the Debtors changed the status quo. The Court also denied AFA's motion to substitute the terms of the later agreement, stating that AFA had not shown sufficient cause and that rewarding a threatened 'CHAOS' strategy would be bad policy.

BankruptcyCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeRailway Labor Act (RLA)Norris-La Guardia Act (NLGA)Preliminary InjunctionStrike ActivityUnion RepresentationChapter 11Flight Attendants
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mott v. ITT Industries

A claimant, who performed clerical duties for the employer for over 27 years, was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 2006 and applied for workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the disallowance of the claim as time-barred pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, noting that despite the claimant's prior awareness of work-related symptoms, the Board failed to establish the crucial date of disablement. Without this finding, the conclusion regarding the claim being time-barred could not be supported. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeStatute of LimitationsDate of DisablementAppellate ProcedureClaim DisallowanceReversalRemittiturLegal InterpretationCausation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hazzard v. Adams Russell Cable Services

Claimant, a line technician, sustained a left knee injury in January 1987 but did not file a workers' compensation claim until August 1995. The employer's carrier argued the claim was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, a contention upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Board. On appeal, the claimant argued that a C-4 medical report from 1987 or an advance payment of compensation should have prevented the claim from being time-barred. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no evidence that the C-4 report was filed with the Board within the two-year statutory period, nor that the employer or carrier made an advance payment to waive the statute of limitations.

Workers' CompensationTime-barred ClaimStatute of LimitationsAdvance PaymentMedical ReportBoard AffirmationAppellate ReviewKnee InjuryLine Technician
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,674 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