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-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marchant v. Schenley Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Howard M. Marchant initiated an action against Schenley Industries, Inc., and Schenley Affiliated Brands Corp., alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) following his termination at age 54. Marchant sought to amend his complaint to include state claims for breach of contract and tortious discharge, and to request remedies such as reinstatement. The Court granted the plaintiff's motions to amend the complaint but dismissed the tortious discharge claim, finding it unrecognized under Tennessee law, and granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on the breach of contract claim. While denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the original ADEA complaint, the Court granted partial summary judgment against the plaintiff on the issue of damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress under the ADEA. However, the plaintiff's request for reinstatement or damages in lieu of reinstatement was granted, allowing these claims to proceed.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractTortious DischargeSummary JudgmentFederal Civil ProcedurePendent JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionTennessee Employment LawRemedies
References
21
Case No. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim
References
17
Case No. 01-22-00313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

Team Industrial Services, Inc. v. Kelli Most, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse Henson

Kelli Most, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Jesse Henson, sued Team Industrial Services, Inc. for wrongful death and survival claims after Henson died from severe burns sustained in a steam release at a Kansas power plant. Most alleged Team was negligent in servicing pressure relief valves. The jury found Team 90% negligent and Westar (Henson's employer) 10% negligent, awarding Most $222 million in damages. On appeal, Team challenged the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and its refusal to apply Kansas law, which has limits on non-economic damages and different joint and several liability rules. The appellate court found that Kansas law should have been applied for proportionate responsibility and wrongful death damages caps, and that the jury's non-economic damages award was excessive due to improper arguments. The court also determined that all forum non conveniens factors favored dismissal to Kansas, vacating the judgment and dismissing the case.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ActionNegligence (Corporate)Forum Non ConveniensChoice of Law (Conflicts)Damages CapsComparative NegligenceExcessive DamagesAppellate Court DecisionIndustrial Safety
References
74
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. 13-20-00004-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Regina Kay Smith and Jeffrey Scott Grove, as Surviving Parents of Brittany Dawn Grove v. USI Industrial Services, Inc.

Regina Kay Smith and Jeffrey Scott Grove, parents of Brittany Dawn Grove, appealed a summary judgment granted to USI Industrial Services, Inc. The Groves brought claims against USI based on respondeat superior and non-employee mission liability after a fatal auto accident involving USI's former employees, Roberto Rodriguez and Alejandro Ayala, and Brittany Grove. The accident occurred while Rodriguez and Ayala were traveling home after being terminated from USI. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Rodriguez's employment status with USI at the time of the accident. Additionally, the court found that USI did not control the manner or route of travel for the non-employees, thereby negating non-employee mission liability.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityNon-Employee Mission LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealEmployment TerminationCourse and Scope of EmploymentFatal Auto AccidentAffidavit EvidenceJudicial ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
24
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04161 [150 AD3d 1169]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2017

Rodriguez v. Dickard Widder Industries

Angela Rodriguez was terminated from her employment and filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. After the DHR dismissed her case, she filed an action against Dickard Widder Industries asserting state law claims under NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and common-law negligence, and later added federal Title VII claims in an amended complaint. The Supreme Court initially dismissed state law claims but later, upon reargument, vacated that dismissal. The defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the granting of reargument but modified the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the plaintiff's state law claims were barred by her election of an administrative remedy and the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions. However, the court affirmed that the federal Title VII claims were maintainable and timely, as election of a state administrative remedy does not bar federal employment discrimination claims.

Employment LawSexual HarassmentRetaliationNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawTitle VII Civil Rights ActElection of RemediesMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salomon v. Adderley Industries, Inc.

Plaintiffs Geordany J. Salomon, Donielle Lewis, Dwight Edghill, and Shanroy Powell sought to amend their complaint against Adderley Industries, Inc. to include American Communications Industries, Inc. and several individuals (Lawrence Presser, Joseph Misseri, Vincent Cestaro) as additional defendants. They also requested to add a new claim under New York Labor Law Section 195. Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York reviewed the motion, applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b). The court granted the motion to add the new corporate and individual defendants, finding that the plaintiffs were diligent in seeking the amendment after new information emerged during discovery and that the proposed claims of employer status were plausible under the FLSA and NYLL. However, the request to add the NYLL § 195 claim was denied because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient good cause for its late inclusion.

Amendment of PleadingsJoinder of PartiesEmployer LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ClaimsDiscoveryGood Cause StandardUndue DelayFutility of Amendment
References
36
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00044 [212 AD3d 419]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2023

Sakthivel v. Industrious Staffing Co., LLC

Plaintiff Suba Sakthivel appealed an order dismissing her complaint against Industrious Staffing Company, LLC. Sakthivel, proceeding pro se, alleged unlawful termination based on complaints about safety violations following a coworker assault, claiming protection under Labor Law §§ 215 and 740. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that Sakthivel, as a staff accountant, was not covered by Labor Law § 200, which applies to construction workers. Her Labor Law § 740 claim failed because a coworker assault does not meet the criteria for a "substantial and specific danger to public health or safety." Additionally, her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was dismissed for not alleging conduct "utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

Employment LawRetaliation ClaimWrongful TerminationSafe WorkplaceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAppellate ReviewCPLR 3211 DismissalLabor Law ViolationsCoworker AssaultStaff Accountant
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patricia v. Delford Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Carrie Patricia brought an action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act against her former employer, Delford Industries, Inc., and her bargaining representatives, Local 546 and the International Union. Patricia alleged wrongful termination by Delford and a breach of the duty of fair representation by the unions for their handling of her grievance. The court considered motions for summary judgment from all parties and Patricia's motion to amend her complaint. The motions for summary judgment by Local 546, Delford, and Patricia were denied. The International Union's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Patricia's motion to amend her complaint was also granted.

Labor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Civil ProcedureRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelUnemployment Benefits Claim
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 11,619 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