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

Ofudu v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

Plaintiff Agawukwu Ofudu filed an action against his former employer, Barr Laboratories, Inc., alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendant moved to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of facts and for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant's motion to strike in part and granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The decision highlighted the plaintiff's failure to provide sufficient evidentiary support for his claims, with many statements deemed conclusory and not consonant with the record. The court also addressed the continuing violations doctrine, disfavoring its application in this circuit, and dismissed claims that were time-barred or not specified in the EEOC charge, such as retaliation and national origin discrimination. Ultimately, the court found a complete absence of proof on the plaintiff's part to establish discriminatory motive.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentMotion to StrikePrima Facie CaseContinuing Violations DoctrineEEOC ChargeBurden-ShiftingEmployment Law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weitzman v. Eagle-Picher Industries

This opinion addresses consolidated motions for summary judgment and cross-motions to strike within the context of the New York City asbestos litigation. The court examined two primary issues: the applicability of the "military contractor defense" to asbestos-containing products used for military purposes and the sufficiency of product identification prior to trial. Defendant Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied, as the court found no significant conflict between state tort law regarding the duty to warn and federal specifications, thus rejecting the military contractor defense. Furthermore, the court denied motions for summary judgment by various defendants who claimed insufficient product identification in the Weitzman case, affirming that product identification remains a question of fact. The court emphasized that the failure to warn is not a discretionary governmental function, thereby precluding the military contractor defense in this context.

Asbestos LitigationSummary Judgment MotionMilitary Contractor DefenseDuty to WarnProduct IdentificationToxic Tort Revival StatuteGovernment ImmunityDiscretionary Function ExceptionBrooklyn Navy YardNegligence
References
14
Case No. 1099
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Stature Electric, Inc.

The court ruled on a motion to strike the supplemental appendix and specific sections of the brief submitted by respondent David W. Howard. The motion was granted to the extent that the material in the brief referencing the supplemental appendix is deemed stricken. However, the motion to strike was otherwise denied.

Motion to strikeSupplemental appendixBriefCourt procedureProcedural ruling
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Devon Knitwear Co. v. Levinson

The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike an affirmative defense presented by the defendant labor union. The union argued that the plaintiffs came to court with 'unclean hands' due to their alleged refusal to bargain collectively, constituting an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. Plaintiffs contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over unfair labor practices, as this power is exclusively vested in the National Labor Relations Board. The court clarified that while the NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction to *prevent* unfair labor practices, the court retains its inherent equitable power to deny relief to a party with 'unclean hands'. Therefore, the court found the union's defense legally sufficient and denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike.

EquityInjunctionUnclean HandsNational Labor Relations ActLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticesJurisdictionAffirmative DefenseMotion to StrikeCollective Bargaining
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Belinson v. Sewer District No. 16 of Town of Amherst

Plaintiffs commenced an action for the wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering of decedents Robert L. Belinson and Frank J. Lehman against the Town of Amherst and its sewer districts, following their deaths from fumes while checking sewer lift stations. Defendants raised workers' compensation as an affirmative defense, which plaintiffs moved to strike, arguing the sewer districts were distinct from the town. The court reversed the order granting plaintiffs' motion, ruling that the sewer districts are administrative departments of the Town of Amherst, not separate public corporations, based on interpretations of the General Construction Law and Town Law. Consequently, workers' compensation was deemed a proper defense, and the motion to strike was denied. The court also noted that while summary judgment was not sought, it could be pursued later.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathConscious Pain and SufferingTown of AmherstSewer DistrictsMunicipal CorporationsDistrict CorporationsAffirmative DefenseStatutory InterpretationGeneral Construction Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burns Jackson v. Lindner

This case involves a class action lawsuit brought by professional and business entities in Manhattan against various unions and their officers, including the Transport Workers Union (TWU), Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), and George Link. The plaintiffs sought damages resulting from an 11-day mass transit strike in April 1980 in New York City. The complaint asserted causes of action based on prima facie tort, public nuisance, and third-party beneficiary breach of contract. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The court denied the motion to dismiss for the prima facie tort and public nuisance claims, concluding that illegal public employee strikes could give rise to private causes of action for damages. However, the motion to dismiss the third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim was granted, as the court found the collective bargaining agreement did not primarily intend to benefit the public to allow private enforcement for consequential damages.

Mass Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor DisputePrima Facie TortPublic NuisanceDamagesClass ActionMotion to DismissTaylor LawUnion Liability
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1986

Montalvo v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union of America Local No. 3

The plaintiff, an employee of Entenmanns Bakery, sustained injuries in an automobile accident and received disability benefits from the defendant. Upon settling a third-party lawsuit related to the accident, the defendant sought to impose a lien on the settlement proceeds for the benefits paid, citing the "Bakery and Confectionery Workers Local No. 3 Welfare Fund Deed of Trust". The plaintiff initiated an action for a declaratory judgment, arguing that Workers’ Compensation Law and Insurance Law provisions precluded the defendant's lien. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and to strike the defendant's affirmative defenses. On appeal, the order was modified: the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant’s first and second affirmative defenses was granted, and the order was otherwise affirmed.

LienDisability benefitsWorkers' Compensation LawInsurance LawGeneral Associations LawSummary judgmentAffirmative defensesImproper serviceDeclaratory judgmentAppellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LeFever v. Stultz

Plaintiff Kleon M. LeFever and defendant Ralph Stultz, both assistant general counsel at North American Philips Corporation, were involved in an incident in 1977. Stultz, intoxicated, lost balance and fell, dragging LeFever, who severely injured his right eye. LeFever received workers' compensation benefits. Subsequently, LeFever sued Stultz, whose answer included a Workers' Compensation Law defense. Special Term initially granted LeFever's motion to strike this defense. The appellate court found that Special Term erred, concluding there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether Stultz was acting in the course of his employment, despite his intoxication. Therefore, Stultz's Workers' Compensation Law defense is reinstated, and the plaintiffs' motion to strike is denied.

Workers' Compensation Law DefenseFellow Employee InjuryIntoxication at WorkCourse of EmploymentTriable Issue of FactMotion to Strike DefenseAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryEmployer PremisesAccident at Work
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc.

Plaintiff Erika Flores was fired by defendant Buy Buy Baby, Inc. on December 31, 1998, and filed suit alleging pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and New York State Human Rights Law. Flores claims her supervisor's demeanor changed after disclosing her pregnancy and that her termination was discriminatory, despite no prior warnings. The defendant argued the termination was due to absenteeism and poor performance. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Flores presented sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact regarding pretext. The court also denied the defendant's motion to strike claims for reinstatement and front pay, citing outstanding issues regarding the applicability of after-acquired evidence.

Pregnancy Discrimination ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationPretextPrima Facie CaseAfter-Acquired EvidenceReinstatementFront Pay
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Comair, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n (In Re Delta Air Lines, Inc.)

Comair, Inc., a debtor in bankruptcy, successfully sought a preliminary injunction against the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). Comair had obtained court approval to reject its collective bargaining agreement and planned to implement new employment terms. ALPA threatened a strike, arguing Comair's actions violated the Railway Labor Act's (RLA) status quo provisions. The court ruled that after lawful rejection of a collective bargaining agreement under the Bankruptcy Code, the RLA's status quo obligations do not apply. Therefore, Comair's implementation of new terms was permissible, and ALPA's proposed strike would violate its RLA duty to avoid interruptions to commerce. The motion for a preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining ALPA from engaging in a strike.

Bankruptcy LawLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementRailway Labor ActNorris-LaGuardia ActSection 1113Airline IndustryStrike InjunctionStatus Quo Doctrine
References
53
Showing 1-10 of 10,118 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