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
May 01, 1986

Tudor Fashions Ltd. v. Romney

The plaintiffs, Tudor Fashions Ltd. and David Meryl, Inc., sought a Boys Markets injunction to prevent the defendant Union, Blouse, Skirt & Sportswear Workers’ Union, Local 23-25, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, from striking or interfering with their business. The dispute arose from the Union's claim that David Meryl was an alter-ego of Tudor and thus bound by their collective bargaining agreement, which included a no-strike clause and arbitration. Although arbitration was underway, David Meryl's non-compliance with discovery led to the strike. The court denied the injunction, ruling that a no-strike clause cannot be enforced against a party not yet found to be contractually bound by the agreement. Furthermore, the court found that Tudor was not currently operating and thus not suffering irreparable harm.

Labor DisputeInjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationAlter-ego DoctrineAffiliate StatusNorris-LaGuardia ActLabor Management Relations ActFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnard College, City of New York v. Transport Wkrs. U.

The case involves Barnard College, an employer, and a union party to a collective bargaining agreement. Employees, members of the defendant union, failed to report to work, refusing to cross a picket line established by another union. The collective bargaining agreement includes a no-strike provision and an arbitration clause for "all differences." The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, which the union resisted, arguing the dispute was not arbitrable under the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The court found the dispute, concerning the scope of the no-strike clause when employees refuse to cross a picket line, was indeed arbitrable. Consequently, the motion was granted, directing the defendants to comply with arbitration and enjoining them from violating the no-strike provision pending arbitration.

Collective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClausePicket LineArbitrationLabor InjunctionNorris-LaGuardia ActBoys Markets ExceptionIrreparable InjuryUnion ObligationsEmployer Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrand Optical Co. v. Local 475, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers

The plaintiff, a New York corporation engaged in manufacturing optical goods for the U.S. Air Force, sought a preliminary injunction against an unincorporated labor organization representing its employees. The dispute stemmed from a strike in May 1956, despite a no-strike clause in an existing collective bargaining agreement. A subsequent agreement on July 6, 1956, aimed to resolve the issues, but the defendant union argued it was conditional on employee ratification and compliance with a return-to-work clause, neither of which occurred. The court determined the July 6th agreement was binding and that the ongoing situation did not constitute a 'labor dispute' under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, thus granting the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. This injunction prohibits the defendant from misrepresenting a strike or labor dispute, picketing under such pretext, and violating the July 6th agreement, but does not compel employees to return to work.

Labor LawInjunctionCollective BargainingStrikeNorris-LaGuardia ActTaft-Hartley ActContract DisputeFederal Court JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionRatification
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewittes & Sons v. United Furniture Workers of America

Plaintiffs, members of a copartnership, initiated an action against defendant-unions seeking damages for the alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement's "no strike" clause. The defendants moved for a stay of the trial pending arbitration, citing the United States Arbitration Act. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing that the arbitration clause did not cover damage claims and that Section 1 of the Arbitration Act, which excludes certain employment contracts, should apply to the entire Act, thereby precluding a stay. The court found that the broad language of the arbitration clause encompassed claims for damages arising from a breach of the no-strike pledge. Furthermore, the court clarified that while the exception in Section 1 of the Arbitration Act applies to the entire Act, a collective bargaining agreement is not considered a "contract of employment" in the context of this exception. Consequently, the motion for a stay was granted, promoting arbitration as a means for peaceful labor dispute resolution.

Labor-Management Relations ActUnited States Arbitration ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseNo-Strike ClauseStay of ProceedingsContract of EmploymentInterstate CommerceJudicial InterpretationFederal Court
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claims of Noss

Claimants, employees of Lawrence Aviation Industries, Inc. and union members, commenced a strike in 1984. During the strike, they received weekly strike benefits from their union and later unemployment insurance benefits. The employer challenged these benefits, arguing that strike benefits were contingent on performing union duties, making claimants not 'totally unemployed,' and alleged willful misrepresentation. Both the Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that the strike benefits were not conditional and no misrepresentation occurred. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that strike benefits not conditioned on services are not considered remuneration under 12 NYCRR 490.2 (b) and that the Board's factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, should not be disturbed.

Unemployment BenefitsStrike BenefitsTotal UnemploymentWillful MisrepresentationLabor UnionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceConditional PaymentsNew York Labor Law
References
4
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
Feb 28, 1977

Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 922

This case involves an appeal from a judgment that enjoined unions representing employees of the Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority (SIRTOA) from striking. SIRTOA, a public benefit corporation operating a commuter rail line in New York, argued that its employees, as public employees, are prohibited from striking under the New York State Taylor Law. The defendant unions contended they were governed by the federal Railway Labor Act, which permits strikes. The court affirmed the injunction, determining that SIRTOA's minimal connection to interstate commerce, primarily a single daily freight run, was outweighed by the State's compelling interest in preventing public employee strikes and ensuring essential commuter rail service for Staten Island residents.

Strike InjunctionPublic EmployeesRailway Labor ActTaylor LawInterstate CommerceState SovereigntyCommuter RailCollective BargainingNew York State LawFederal Preemption
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duskin v. Pennsylvania-Central Airlines Corp.

Plaintiff's decedent, a copilot for a Delaware Corporation, died in a plane crash in Alabama. His employment contract specified governance by Pennsylvania law, including its Workmen’s Compensation Act. The plaintiff, the decedent's widow and executrix, filed a negligence suit in Tennessee. The defendant asserted the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act as a defense, prompting the plaintiff to file a motion to strike this defense, arguing for the application of Alabama law due to the accident's location and public policy. The court denied the plaintiff's motion, concluding that the decedent was a Pennsylvania employee under the Act, which was not contrary to Alabama's public policy, and thus, the Act must be recognized under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation ActConflict of LawsFull Faith and Credit ClauseMotion to StrikeEmployment Contract DisputeWorkplace FatalityChoice of LawPublic Policy DebateInterstate EmploymentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
6
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,764 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