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. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

Dr. Tracy D. Strandhagen, an anesthesiologist, was a partner in Austin Anesthesiology Group, LLP, which was sold to American Anesthesiology of Texas, Inc. Physicians, including Strandhagen and the appellants, entered into an Advisory Board and Internal Operations Agreement. This agreement included a 'Termination Penalty Clause' stating that if a physician's employment with AAT terminated early for reasons other than without cause by AAT, they would pay $500,000 in liquidated damages. Strandhagen's employment terminated in July 2013, leading to a dispute over the enforceability of this clause. The trial court granted Strandhagen's motion for summary judgment, declaring the $500,000 liquidated damages clause an unenforceable penalty because it was not a reasonable forecast of just compensation.

Contract DisputeLiquidated DamagesUnenforceable PenaltyEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate LawTexas LawCommercial Contract
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C.B.S., Inc. v. International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industry

The plaintiff, C. B. S., Inc., filed a motion for a temporary injunction to prevent arbitration demanded by Local 644, arguing that no valid arbitration agreement existed between them and that the terminations at issue were non-arbitrable layoffs. The defendant, Local 644, cross-moved to compel arbitration concerning the "arbitrary and capricious discharges" of three union members. The court found that Local 644 was indeed a signatory to and covered by the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, the court determined that whether the terminations constituted layoffs or arbitrary discharges was a matter to be decided by an arbitrator, as the contract did not unambiguously exclude layoffs from the arbitration clause. Consequently, the court denied CBS's motion for a stay of arbitration and granted Local 644's motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationLayoffsDischargesCollective Bargaining AgreementUnionEmployerTemporary InjunctionMotion to Compel ArbitrationArbitrabilityContract Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 & Village of Johnson City

This case addresses whether a 'no-layoff' clause in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Village of Johnson City and its firefighter union was subject to arbitration. The Village abolished six firefighter positions citing budgetary necessity, leading the Johnson City Professional Fire Fighters, Local 921 IAFF, to file a grievance and seek to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed lower court decisions that had compelled arbitration. The court held that the no-layoff clause was not arbitrable because it failed to explicitly, unambiguously, and comprehensively protect against job abolition due to budgetary reasons. The term 'layoff' was deemed ambiguous and undefined within the CBA, rendering the dispute non-arbitrable on public policy grounds, thereby granting the Village's application to stay arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Layoff ClausePublic PolicyBudgetary StringenciesJob SecurityMunicipal EmploymentContract InterpretationUnion GrievanceFirefighters
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clause v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. NO. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2017

Noah S. Bunker Paul Carrell Everett Brew Houston, Jr. W. Andrew Buckholz Scott J. Leighty Jad L. Davis And Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

This case concerns an appeal from a declaratory summary judgment regarding a liquidated-damages provision. Appellee Tracy Strandhagen, a physician, sought to declare a $500,000 liquidated-damages clause in an operating agreement with her former medical practice group's advisory board (appellants) an unenforceable penalty. The trial court denied the appellants' plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Strandhagen. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, found that Strandhagen failed to conclusively prove the provision was an unreasonable forecast of just compensation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, while affirming that the claim was ripe for review.

Contract LawLiquidated DamagesSummary Judgment AppealDeclaratory JudgmentContract BreachEmployment AgreementOperating AgreementUnenforceable PenaltyRipeness DoctrineAppellate Review
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 1975

Sable v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

This case concerns an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 6, 1975, which denied a petitioner's application for a temporary injunction. The injunction sought to prevent the layoff of certain employees by the respondents. The layoffs were proposed due to economic factors and were conducted according to a collective bargaining agreement based on seniority. Employees over 40, through their union, alleged age discrimination, prompting the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights to seek the injunction. The court affirmed the denial, reasoning that legal remedies were not inadequate, and there was no apparent irreparable injury. The decision also noted the unlikelihood of a probable cause finding by the State Division of Human Rights, given the layoffs were pursuant to a seniority-based collective bargaining agreement.

Age DiscriminationLayoffsTemporary InjunctionSeniority RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementHuman Rights DivisionEconomic LayoffsIrreparable InjuryLegal RemediesAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Genuth & S. B. Thomas, Inc.

The case involves a dispute between parties to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the application of the 'anti-pyramiding' clause concerning overtime and invasion of rest period pay. The core issue was whether the rest period was curtailed by overtime worked before it began or by an early return to work. The employer argued for the former, which would activate the anti-pyramiding clause, while the union advocated for the latter, negating the clause's impact and increasing worker pay. The arbitrator sided with the union's interpretation. The court subsequently denied the employer's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's cross-motion to confirm it, affirming that the arbitrator's interpretation was permissible and within his competence.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementanti-pyramiding clauseovertime payrest period paylabor disputearbitration award confirmationcontract interpretationarbitrator's competencejudicial review of arbitration
References
0
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05367 [174 AD3d 1017]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2019

Matter of City of Plattsburgh (Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen's Assn.)

The City of Plattsburgh, the appellant, appealed an order from the Supreme Court that denied its application to permanently stay arbitration with the Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen's Association. The dispute originated from a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which stipulated a minimum staffing level of 36 firefighters and prohibited layoffs. When a firefighter retired, reducing the staff to 35, the City refused to fill the vacancy, citing financial reasons, leading the Firemen's Association to demand arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the City's application to stay arbitration and granted the Association's motion to compel. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the disputed CBA provision was a job security clause. The court found that this clause did not explicitly demonstrate the City's intent to waive its right to reduce staffing for budgetary or economic reasons, thus violating public policy and rendering the dispute non-arbitrable. A concurring opinion further noted that the clause also violated public policy due to its unreasonable duration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementJob Security ClausePublic PolicyStaffing LevelsFirefighters UnionBudgetary ConstraintsAppellate DivisionCPLR Article 75Stay Arbitration
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Winters v. General Motors Corp.

Plaintiffs Roger Winters and David Burt sued General Motors for wrongful layoff after being promoted from unionized hourly employees to non-union salaried supervisors. They argued their layoffs violated the company's "Working With General Motors" handbook, which outlined seniority-based reduction-in-force procedures for employees with "Good/Competent" ratings. General Motors countered that the plaintiffs' month-to-month employment agreements, containing exclusivity clauses, superseded any handbook provisions, establishing an at-will employment relationship. The court, applying New York law, determined that the "express limitation" exception to the at-will doctrine arises singularly from contract law, and the plaintiffs' integrated employment agreements precluded the handbook from constituting a binding limitation. Consequently, finding no material fact genuinely in issue and concluding the defendant was entitled to discharge the plaintiffs with a month's notice, the court granted General Motors' motion for summary judgment.

wrongful layoffemployment at willsummary judgmentcontract lawemployee handbookseniorityexpress agreementconsiderationfederal diversity jurisdictionreduction in force
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,168 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