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

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. Cuomo

Plaintiffs, an association of home care providers and five licensed home care services agencies, challenged the New York Public Health Law § 3614-c (Wage Parity Law), alleging preemption by NLRA and ERISA, and violations of Equal Protection and Due Process. The Court dismissed claims against Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and all claims related to NLRA preemption, Equal Protection, and Due Process. However, the Court denied dismissal of the ERISA preemption claim against Commissioner Nirav R. Shah, finding subdivision 4 of the Wage Parity Law invalid as preempted by ERISA. Consequently, subdivision 4 was severed, and Commissioner Shah was permanently enjoined from enforcing it, while the remainder of the Wage Parity Law was upheld.

Wage Parity LawERISA PreemptionNLRA PreemptionEqual ProtectionDue ProcessStandingSeverabilityHome Care ServicesMedicaidCollective Bargaining
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

RI, Inc. v. Gardner

The plaintiffs, Seating Solutions and its principals, brought an action against New York State labor officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the NLRA. They alleged violations of substantive due process, equal protection, and NLRA preemption, stemming from the New York State Department of Labor's determination that Seating Solutions had underpaid prevailing wages on public construction projects. The DOL classified their workers as 'ornamental ironworkers' based on an external collective bargaining agreement, not recognizing the plaintiffs' union agreement. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. The substantive due process claim was barred by collateral estoppel from a prior state appellate ruling, the equal protection claim lacked sufficient evidence of disparate treatment, and the NLRA preemption arguments were rejected based on established case law.

Summary JudgmentPrevailing Wage LawNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Due ProcessEqual ProtectionCollateral EstoppelPreemptionCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)New York Labor LawPublic Work Projects
References
25
Case No. C-5672, E-2429, C-5878
Regular Panel Decision

Buffalo United Charter School v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

Petitioners, consisting of Buffalo United Charter School, Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, and National Heritage Academies, Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge and annul a February 14, 2011 decision by the New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The PERB decision asserted jurisdiction over the charter schools, rejected National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preemption claims, and determined that assistant principals were neither managerial nor confidential employees. Petitioners contended that PERB lacked jurisdiction due to its joint public-private employment doctrine, that the NLRA preempted PERB's authority, and that PERB erroneously found the assistant principals lacked managerial or confidential status. They also argued the PERB decision unconstitutionally impaired their contractual rights. The court largely upheld PERB's jurisdiction, ruling that the Charter Schools Act superseded PERB's joint public-private employment doctrine and denying the NLRA preemption claim. However, the court annulled PERB's determination regarding the managerial and confidential status of assistant principals at Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, reinstating the Administrative Law Judge's original finding on that specific issue.

Charter SchoolsPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Taylor LawNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)JurisdictionJoint Public-Private Employment DoctrineManagerial EmployeesConfidential EmployeesCollective BargainingCPLR Article 78
References
24
Case No. 10 NY3d 703 [2008]
Regular Panel Decision

Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v. Fishman

This case addresses whether a private nuisance claim stemming from loud drumming during union leafleting is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Plaintiffs, including the managing agent of the Empire State Building and nearby businesses, sought an injunction against the Union's drumming activities. While the NLRB had previously found the drumming insufficient to transform protected leafleting into unlawful conduct, the Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction. The Appellate Division reversed, citing federal preemption. This Court reversed the Appellate Division, ruling that neither Garmon nor Machinists preemption applies. The Court emphasized that the state's interest in regulating local conduct like private nuisance outweighs potential interference with federal labor law, and loud drumming is not considered an "economic weapon" protected by the NLRA. The case was remitted for further consideration.

Private NuisanceNLRA PreemptionLabor DisputesUnion ProtestsFree SpeechState Court JurisdictionFederal Law SupremacyGarmon DoctrineMachinists DoctrineInjunctive Relief
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lagoy v. Correctional Medical Services

Plaintiff Darcy LaGoy sued Correctional Medical Services (CMS) and individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1981, alleging violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as a government employee. LaGoy also brought state law claims for defamation and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress. She claimed CMS, a contractor for Albany County Correctional Facility, unlawfully terminated her for participating in a union organizing rally, despite CMS's anti-union stance. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting NLRA preemption and primary NLRB jurisdiction. District Judge Sharpe denied the motion, ruling that LaGoy’s § 1983 constitutional claims were not preempted by the NLRA, as it lacks a comprehensive enforcement mechanism for constitutional rights, and her state law claims fell under recognized exceptions to Garmon preemption.

42 U.S.C. Section 198342 U.S.C. Section 1981First Amendment RightsFourteenth Amendment RightsConstitutional LawNLRA PreemptionMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionLabor LawEmployment Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alcantara v. Allied Properties, LLC

Plaintiff-workers filed a lawsuit in New York state court alleging violations of the New York Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (NYDWPA) by new building owners. The plaintiffs sought restoration of their employment and back wages and benefits. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the state law claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The court examined Garmon preemption, Machinists preemption, and Section 301 preemption. It concluded that none of these federal preemption doctrines provided a basis for removal to federal court. The court noted that the state court should be given the opportunity to construe the municipal law's provisions before federal intervention. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

Preemption DoctrineNLRA PreemptionLMRA PreemptionNYDWPAWorkers' Protection ActMotion to RemandFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsCollective BargainingLabor Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. Paxton

The City of Austin sued the State of Texas (Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Workforce Commission) to enjoin Texas Local Government Code § 250.007(c). This state law allows landlords to refuse tenants using federal housing vouchers, which the City argues is preempted by federal law due to its ordinance prohibiting such discrimination. The State filed a motion to dismiss, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, affirming the City's standing and ruling the suit not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. However, the Court granted dismissal for the City's conflict preemption and Section 3617 express preemption claims, but denied dismissal for the Section 3615 express preemption claim, concluding the City adequately pleaded a disparate impact claim.

PreemptionFederal Housing Choice Voucher ProgramTexas Local Government CodeFair Housing ActEleventh AmendmentStandingMotion to DismissDisparate ImpactCity OrdinanceState Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raheb v. Schneierson Holding Corp.

Plaintiff Nadia El Raheb sued Schneierson Holding Corp. and Triangle Lingerie Corp. for wrongful discharge. The case, initially filed in the New York State Supreme Court, was removed to federal court by the defendants, who claimed federal preemption under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The plaintiff sought a remand, arguing a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and for sanctions. The Court found no federal subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the defendants were collaterally estopped from asserting federal preemption due to a prior inconsistent stance taken in an arbitration proceeding. Consequently, the action was remanded to the New York State Supreme Court.

Wrongful DischargeFederal PreemptionNational Labor Relations ActSubject Matter JurisdictionRemand to State CourtRule 12(b)(6) MotionSanctions MotionCollateral EstoppelSuccessor EmployerCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delta-Sonic Carwash Systems, Inc. v. Building Trades Council

Delta-Sonic sought an injunction to prevent The Council from distributing handbills outside its carwashes in Rochester. The Council, representing various construction unions, initiated the protest against Delta-Sonic, believing it was affiliated with Benderson Corporation, which allegedly hired nonunion labor. Delta-Sonic claimed tortious interference with its business and denied affiliation, while The Council argued that federal labor law preempted the state court action. The court, presided over by Justice Kenneth R. Fisher, examined federal preemption doctrines, specifically Garmon and Machinists preemption. Ultimately, the court denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the peaceful handbilling was either arguably protected under NLRA Section 7 or intended by Congress to be left unregulated.

Labor Dispute InjunctionFederal Preemption DoctrineSecondary Boycott ActivityPeaceful Handbilling RightsLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActGarmon DoctrineMachinists DoctrineFirst Amendment IssuesTortious Interference Claim
References
22
Case No. 2003 NY Slip Op 23942
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2003

Duane Reade, Inc. v. Local 338 Retail, Wholesale Dept. Store Union, UFCW, AFL-CIO

This case arises from a labor dispute between Duane Reade, Inc. (plaintiff) and Local 338 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (defendants). Duane Reade sued the union for trespass, tortious interference, fraud, and defamation, seeking $1.4 million in damages. The union moved to dismiss, arguing failure to plead membership authorization for tortious acts and NLRA preemption of state claims. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the dismissal, finding that Duane Reade did not meet pleading requirements under Martin v Curran and that the state law claims were preempted by the NLRA, as the NLRB was already investigating related unfair labor practices. The court also denied Duane Reade's cross-motion to amend its complaint.

Labor LawUnion DisputeNLRA PreemptionTrespassTortious InterferenceFraudDefamationMotion to DismissCollective BargainingUnfair Labor Practices
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 276 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