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

Members for a Democratic Union v. Local 1101, Communications Workers

Plaintiffs, Members for a Democratic Union (MDU) and individual members, sought mandatory injunctive relief to compel defendants, Local 1101, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its officers, to publish an advertisement promoting a 'Defense Fund' in the union's newspaper, 'The Generator'. They argued this right under section 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The defendants maintained a policy of not accepting paid advertisements, only publishing free notices for union member benefits, and argued this policy was reasonable and consistently applied. The court distinguished the case from previous rulings, noting that 'The Generator' had not 'opened the forum' to commercial speech or taken a stance on the Defense Fund issue. The court also noted that plaintiffs had other viable communication channels. Ultimately, the court found the defendants' policy to be reasonable and granted their motion for summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs' motion and dismissing the action.

Labor LawUnion DemocracyFreedom of SpeechLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentUnion NewspaperAdvertising PolicyInjunctive ReliefFirst AmendmentInternal Union Affairs
References
18
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

Drywall Tapers & Pointers of Greater New York, Local 1974 of I.B.P.A.T. v. Local 530 of Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons International Ass'n

This case involves Local 1974 (plaintiff) suing Local 530 (defendant) for violating Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 by asserting jurisdiction over work awarded to Local 1974 through arbitration agreements. Local 1974 sought an injunction and damages. The court had previously confirmed an arbitration decision favoring Local 1974 and issued a preliminary injunction against Local 530. Subsequently, Local 1974 moved for class certification to represent its members, which Local 530 opposed. The court denied the motion for class certification, ruling that a union generally cannot serve as a class representative for its members under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, though it confirmed that a union can sue for damages on behalf of its *present* members under Section 301(b) for breaches of union contracts.

Class ActionLabor UnionJurisdiction DisputeLabor-Management Relations ActRule 23StandingDamagesInjunctive ReliefCollective BargainingUnion Contracts
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ewh v. Monarch Wine Co.

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by a female employee against Monarch Wine Co., Inc. and Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers Union, Local 1, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff claims Monarch maintains discriminatory classification and seniority systems leading to layoffs of females, lack of supervisory positions for women, and assignment to lower-paying jobs, while the Union failed to represent its female members fairly. The plaintiff sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and monetary damages. The court addressed the plaintiff's motion for class action certification under Rule 23(e)(1), F.R.Civ.P. The defendants opposed certification, citing insufficient numerosity and antagonistic interests among prospective class members. The court, focusing on the numerosity requirement, determined that with 34 to 50 potential class members residing in close geographical proximity, joinder was not impracticable, denying the motion for class action certification.

Class actionSex discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActLayoffsSeniority systemsEmployment discriminationUnion representationNumerosity requirementImpracticability of joinder
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06734 [200 AD3d 1162]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2021

DiCenzo v. Mone

William R. DiCenzo II, acting as guardian, appealed two Supreme Court orders. The first order dismissed claims against Debbie Cutler and Cutler, Trainor & Cutler LLP. The second order partially dismissed claims against Michael Mone, Nicholas Mone, Barbara Mone, and Courtenay W. Hall, disqualified plaintiff's counsel, and denied plaintiff's motion to disqualify opposing counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of most claims, finding them either time-barred or failing to state a cause of action. However, the court reversed and reinstated a portion of a breach of contract claim for installments due after December 2012, as the defendants did not prove debt acceleration. The disqualification of plaintiff's counsel was upheld under the advocate-witness rule, and the refusal to disqualify opposing counsel was also affirmed.

Statute of LimitationsBreach of ContractFraudulent InducementBreach of Fiduciary DutyConstructive TrustEquitable EstoppelAdvocate-Witness RuleAttorney DisqualificationDismissalSummary Judgment
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gajadhar

Defendant Winston Gajadhar was tried before a 12-member jury. During deliberations, a juror became ill, and defendant, opposing a mistrial, waived his right to a 12-person jury, requesting that deliberations continue with the remaining 11 jurors. The Supreme Court granted this request, and Gajadhar was convicted of attempted robbery and felony murder. On appeal, defendant argued that the state constitution does not permit a defendant to consent to a jury of less than 12 members. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that article I, section 2 of the state constitution, as amended in 1938, allows a noncapital criminal defendant to waive the right to a 12-person jury and consent to deliberations by 11 jurors under proper circumstances, provided the waiver is made in writing and in open court.

Jury WaiverEleven-Member JuryCriminal Procedure LawConstitutional LawJury DeliberationsTrial by JuryFelony MurderAttempted RobberyAppellate ReviewJury Substitution
References
34
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01051
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2023

Lindsay v. CG Maiden Member, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting plaintiff Nathaniel Lindsay partial summary judgment on his common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims against Five Star Carting, L.L.C. Lindsay testified he fell from an unsecured and wet A-frame ladder while trying to close a leaking valve, establishing an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found defendant failed to provide proper protection and that the defendant's workers created the dangerous condition leading to the accident for the negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. Despite defendant's arguments about inconsistent statements regarding the injury, this evidence did not controvert the plaintiff's testimony about the fall. The decision confirmed plaintiff's entitlement to partial summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction Site InjuryWorkplace SafetyFall AccidentAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reliance Insurance v. Certain Member Companies

Plaintiffs Reliance Insurance Company and New York Marine & General Insurance Company commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment to void a reinsurance binder ab initio. Defendants, Certain Member Companies of the Institute of London Underwriters, issued this binder covering plywood cargo. A cargo fire on the vessel SAMICK NORDIC destroyed the plywood, leading to a dispute over a $2,043,740.24 reinsurance coverage. Plaintiffs argued they were misled by brokers into believing the reassured was retaining a portion of the risk, a customary practice, whereas the London Underwriters had ceded 100% of the FPA risk. The court found that plaintiffs reasonably believed in retention and were indeed misled by the brokers' actions and omissions, constituting a violation of the duty of uberrimae fidei, or utmost good faith. Consequently, the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the reinsurance binder void ab initio and dismissing the defendants' counterclaim.

Reinsurance disputeMarine insuranceDeclaratory judgmentUberrimae fideiBroker misleadingDuty to discloseFPA riskCargo insuranceContract void ab initioGood faith in insurance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Bevona

Carlos Guzman, a member and former shop steward of Local 32B-32J, sued the Union's Joint Executive Board for violating his rights under the LMRDA and LMRA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. Guzman alleged he was retaliated against for protesting union dues and salaries, specifically by being excluded from a meeting, subjected to surveillance by union-hired private investigators, and having his work hours reduced. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Guzman's claims had sufficient grounds to proceed, including potential damages for breach of union constitution and for extreme and outrageous conduct causing emotional distress.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLabor Management Relations ActFreedom of Speech and AssemblyUnion Dues ProtestShop Steward ExclusionSurveillanceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to DismissUnion Constitution BreachRetaliation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peacock v. Wurf

Plaintiffs, members of Local 420 of AFSCME, initiated an action against Jerry Wurf, President of AFSCME, and later James Butler, President of Local 420, seeking to enjoin internal union disciplinary hearings. The District Court granted a temporary restraining order. The initial action became moot when Butler withdrew his charges against the plaintiffs, leading to dismissal by consent. This memorandum opinion addresses the plaintiffs' subsequent application for attorneys' fees. The Court granted the application, finding that the plaintiffs provided a substantial benefit to the union membership by defending their free speech rights under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), aligning with the 'common benefit' doctrine established in Hall v. Cole.

Union DemocracyLMRDAFree Speech RightsAttorneys' FeesCommon Benefit DoctrineInternal Union DisputeRetaliationInjunctive ReliefDismissalSuccessful Litigants
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 947 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