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

Matter of General Elec. Co. (Elec., Etc., Workers)

A union sought to arbitrate a claim that a company violated an anti-discrimination provision of their collective bargaining agreement by not providing pension credits for time spent on union activities beyond the hours for which the company had agreed to pay. The collective bargaining agreement allowed for arbitration of disputes over its provisions but was silent on pensions. The court ruled that no bona fide dispute existed, as the anti-discrimination clause could not be used to force a change in a separate agreement about paid union time. The court reasoned that providing pension credits for unpaid union activity would discriminate in favor of union representatives, an obligation the company did not have. Therefore, there was no valid ground for arbitration, and the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPension CreditsAnti-Discrimination ClauseUnion ActivityEmployee BenefitsLabor DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationNew York State Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klumb v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System

The case involves a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) board's authority to define 'employee' for pension eligibility. Petitioners, former City of Houston employees transferred to a third-party entity (CCSI), sought retirement benefits or cessation of pension contributions, arguing they were no longer City employees. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained 'members' due to the City's effective control over their new employer. The trial court and court of appeals dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the statutory preclusion of judicial review for HMEPS decisions. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, concluding that the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority and that the petitioners' ultra vires, equal protection, and due course of law claims were invalid as they lacked vested property rights in the pension benefits.

Pension LawStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewUltra ViresSovereign ImmunityEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal EmployeesOutsourcing
References
29
Case No. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Case No. NO. 13-0515
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

John Klumb, Veronica McClelland, Vivian Montejano, John Gonzalez, Anita Robles, and Charmaine Pilgrim, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and the City of Houston v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, Barbara Chelette, David L. Long, Lenard Polk, Roy Sanchez, and Lonnie Vara

This case concerns a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) and whether its board members violated the enabling statute by requiring petitioners' continued participation in the City of Houston's defined-benefit pension plan. The City attempted to remove a division of employees from the pension system by forming quasi-governmental entities. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained under the City's control and payroll, thus falling under the "employee" definition for HMEPS membership. Petitioners, including individual employees and the City of Houston, asserted ultra vires and constitutional claims, arguing the board unlawfully redefined "employee" and denied vested rights. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority in construing the term "employee" and the petitioners' constitutional claims were facially invalid as they lacked vested property rights in pension benefits or contributions.

Pension SystemEmployee DefinitionUltra ViresJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityTexas ConstitutionEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal Employees
References
30
Case No. 14-18-00896-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

City of Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner Controller Chris Brown Council Members Amy Peck, Tarsha Jackson, Abbie Kamin, Carolyn Evans-Shabazz, Dave Martin, Tiffany D. Thomas, Greg Travis, Karla Cisneros, Robert Gallegos, Edward Pollard, Martha Castex-Tatum, Mike Knox, David Robinson, Michael Kubosh, Letitia Plummer, and Sallie Alcorn And Director of Finance Tantri Emo v. Houston Municipal Employee Pension System Board Chairman Sherry Mose Board Vice-Chairman Lenard Polk Board Secretary Rhonda Smith And Board Trustees Roderick J. Newman, Roy W. Sanchez, Lonnie Vara, Barbara Chelette, Denise Castillo-Rhodes, David Donnelly, Edward J. Hamb II, and Adrian Patterson

This case is a continuation of a dispute between the Houston Municipal Employee Pension System and the City of Houston regarding statutorily required pension payments. The Pension System sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City to make these payments and asserted ultra vires claims against city officials. The City raised counterclaims and third-party claims, challenging the Pension System's standing and asserting governmental immunity. The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for the Pension System. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, rejecting the City's arguments concerning independent contractors, 401(k) program eligibility, retrospective relief, contractual claims, and res judicata.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsPension SystemMunicipal EmployeesMandamusSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationTexas Constitutional LawAppellate ReviewEmployee Benefits
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund of the Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the Electrical Industry

Plaintiff Claude Jeffries, a retired electrician, sued the Pension Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry under ERISA, seeking to include pension credits from 1969-1975 in his current benefits. He alleged the Plan should have declared a partial termination during a 1975-1979 New York recession, which would have vested his benefits. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of standing and statute of limitations, while plaintiff moved for class certification for similarly affected members. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for benefits, finding it timely, but granted dismissal for the breach of fiduciary duty claim as time-barred. The plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied due to insufficient evidence for numerosity, with leave to refile after discovery.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass CertificationMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFiduciary DutyPartial TerminationBenefit ForfeitureUnemploymentLabor Union
References
15
Case No. 78-3135
Regular Panel Decision

Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Kraftco, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute over delinquent pension contributions owed by Kraftco, Inc., to the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund and Local Union 327, Teamsters. The central issue revolved around a "side letter" agreement between Kraftco and the Union president, made without full Union ratification, which sought to modify the terms of collective bargaining agreements regarding pension contributions. The District Court found this side letter agreement null and void, asserting it violated federal labor laws (LMRA and ERISA) and Illinois trust law by circumventing established contractual obligations and diminishing employee rights. The court ruled that Kraftco's reliance on the unauthorized side letter was not justifiable, denying an estoppel argument. Judgment was entered for the Fund and Union, requiring Kraftco to pay $246,395.00 in past due contributions.

Labor LawPension ContributionsCollective Bargaining AgreementERISALMRASide Letter AgreementTrust Fund EnforcementUnion RatificationContract ModificationDelinquent Contributions
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Broadway Maintenance Corp.

This case involves the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation (Broadway) disputing the termination date of Broadway's non-union employee pension plan. PBGC initiated the lawsuit to become the statutory trustee and sought to establish March 26, 1981, as the termination date. Broadway argued for an earlier, retroactive date. The court, guided by ERISA and the interests of the plan participants, rejected both parties' proposed dates. The judge formulated a test for involuntary terminations and ultimately established December 5, 1980, as the official termination date, citing the date PBGC first formalized its intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActInvoluntary TerminationTermination Date DisputeBankruptcyPlan Participants' InterestsStatutory TrusteeFiduciary DutyPension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2013

National Integrated Group Pension Plan v. Dunhill Food Equipment Corp.

This case, filed under ERISA, involves the National Integrated Group Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees (Plaintiffs) seeking to collect withdrawal liability from Dunhill Food Equipment, Esquire Mechanical, Geoffrey Thaw, Sanford Associates, and Custom Stainless (Defendants). The core dispute revolved around whether the non-Dunhill defendants were part of a commonly controlled group at the time of Dunhill's withdrawal from the pension plan, and whether Geoffrey Thaw could be held personally liable through veil piercing. The court ruled that Dunhill, Esquire, and Thaw were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability, attorney's fees, costs, interest, and liquidated damages, finding Thaw's complete domination and misuse of corporate funds justified piercing the corporate veil. However, the claims against Sanford and Custom Stainless were dismissed, as they were determined to have effectively dissolved prior to the withdrawal date, thus not being members of the controlled group.

ERISA LitigationMPPAA LiabilityPension WithdrawalCorporate Veil PiercingSummary Judgment MotionControlled Group LiabilityCorporate DissolutionPersonal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawFiduciary Breach
References
48
Case No. 02 civ. 2192
Regular Panel Decision

Novella v. Westchester County

Carlo Novella sued Westchester County and the New York Carpenters’ Pension Fund, alleging they wrongly calculated his pension. Novella had previously secured summary judgment on the claim that the defendants violated the pension plan by using two different benefit rates. This court had previously certified a class of disability pensioners but reserved judgment on the numerosity requirement. After resolving a discovery dispute, the court found that the proposed class of 24 members met the numerosity requirement due to factors such as geographic dispersion and the members' limited financial resources. Consequently, Novella’s motion for class certification is granted, and the case will proceed as a class action.

Class ActionPension BenefitsDisability PensionERISABenefit CalculationStatute of LimitationsNumerosity RequirementClass CertificationSummary JudgmentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 5,134 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