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

United Federation of Teachers, Local 2 v. Board of Education

The United Federation of Teachers appealed a decision by the Board of Education of the City of New York regarding the selection of teachers for an after-school program. An arbitrator previously ruled that the Board's selection process for Linda Feil, a qualified teacher, was arbitrary and capricious, ordering her placement and back pay. While the Supreme Court confirmed this arbitration award, the Appellate Division reversed, arguing public policy violations and the arbitrator exceeding authority. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, finding that the arbitration award neither violated public policy nor exceeded the arbitrator's powers under the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reinstated the Supreme Court's order confirming the arbitration award in favor of the teacher.

ArbitrationCollective BargainingPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator AuthorityTeacher EmploymentGrievance ProcedureJudicial ReviewEducational StandardsArbitrary and CapriciousSeniority
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1982

In re the Arbitration between Board of Education of Connetquot Central School District & Connetquot Teachers Ass'n

This dissenting opinion argues for affirming a Special Term's order directing a board of education to arbitrate a grievance filed by a teachers union. The union's claim involves continued use of office space in school district buildings, citing a collective bargaining agreement and past practice. The dissent contends that the arbitration clause is broad and encompasses the dispute, rejecting the employer's argument that law or public policy (specifically Education Law § 414 or Civil Service Law § 209-a) prohibits arbitration of this grievance. Justice O'Connor asserts that the union's use of office space for its statutory duties as a collective bargaining agent serves a "school purpose," similar to administrative and support services, and thus is not excluded by Education Law § 414. The dissent concludes that the order compelling arbitration should be affirmed.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceTeachers UnionBoard of EducationOffice SpaceSchool PropertyEducation LawCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations Board
References
15
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05817 [152 AD3d 764]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2017

Matter of Board of Educ. of the Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist. v. Newburgh Teachers' Assn.

In this case, the Newburgh Teachers' Association appealed an order that granted the Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District's petition to permanently stay arbitration and denied the Association's cross motion to compel arbitration. The dispute centered on the Association's demand for the Board to implement measures concerning student discipline and suspension. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that such demands are nonarbitrable on public policy grounds. The court cited New York's Education Law, which grants boards of education discretion in establishing disciplinary rules, thus prohibiting arbitration on this matter.

ArbitrationPublic Sector DisputeCollective BargainingStudent DisciplineEducation LawPublic Policy ProhibitionNonarbitrable GrievanceAppellate Division Second DepartmentSchool District AuthorityTeachers' Association
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Education of Yorktown Central School District v. Yorktown Congress of Teachers

The Yorktown Congress of Teachers (YCT) appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which had granted the Board of Education of the Yorktown Central School District's (Board) petition to stay arbitration and denied the YCT's cross-petition to compel arbitration. The dispute stemmed from the Board's refusal to approve certain graduate credits for compensation for a teacher, leading the YCT to file a grievance and demand arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Supreme Court's order was reversed on appeal. The appellate court found no public policy or statutory prohibition against arbitration and determined that the dispute reasonably related to the CBA's subject matter. Consequently, the Board's petition to stay arbitration was denied, and the YCT's cross-petition to compel arbitration was granted, directing the parties to proceed to arbitration.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationGraduate CreditsTeacher CompensationGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewPublic Sector EmploymentEducation LawCPLR Article 75Contract Interpretation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between the Board of Co-operative Educational Services for the Sole Supervisory District & Boces Teachers Ass'n

Manley, a teacher, sustained employment-related injuries, receiving wages from the Board of Co-op. Educational Servs. for Broome County (petitioner). Upon filing a workers' compensation claim, the petitioner asserted a lien for paid wages. A referee and the Workers' Compensation Board initially affirmed the petitioner's right to reimbursement from Manley's compensation award. Manley's subsequent efforts to challenge this reimbursement, even after a revised compensation award, were rejected due to her failure to appeal the original board decision, rendering it final and conclusive. When Manley's union sought arbitration on the same reimbursement issue, the petitioner successfully obtained a stay of arbitration. This appellate court affirmed the stay, holding that the reimbursement issue was already conclusively determined by the Workers' Compensation Board, thus precluding relitigation through arbitration due to finality and collateral estoppel.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementCollective Bargaining AgreementStay ArbitrationCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataWorkers' Compensation Board Decision FinalityJudicial ReviewSchedule Loss AwardWages During DisabilityLien for Wages
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00957 [213 AD3d 560]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of O'Reilly v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

This case involves an appeal by tenured public school teachers, Christine O'Reilly, Lucia Jennifer Lanzer, Ingrid Romero, and Elizabeth Loiacono, against the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York. They challenged an arbitration award, known as the Impact Award, which established procedures for religious and medical exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, negotiated by their union, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), and the Department of Education (DOE). The petitioners were placed on leave without pay for failing to comply with the vaccine mandate. The court affirmed the dismissal of their CPLR articles 75 and 78 petitions. It found that the teachers lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award and failed to join UFT as a necessary party. Additionally, the court ruled that placement on leave for non-compliance with a condition of employment, such as vaccination, is not a disciplinary action, making Education Law §§ 3020 and 3020-a inapplicable. The court also concluded that petitioners' due process rights were not violated, given the opportunities provided for compliance or exemptions. A dissenting opinion argued that a new, nonstatutory condition of employment cannot be imposed on tenured teachers without legislative action, and they are entitled to due process under Education Law § 3020-a before being placed on unpaid leave or dismissed.

Tenured TeachersCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateArbitration AwardLeave Without PayDue Process RightsEmployment ConditionsCollective BargainingUnion RepresentationAppellate ReviewPublic Education Employees
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madison-Oneida Board of Cooperative Educational Services v. Mills

This case is an appeal reversing a Supreme Court judgment that had annulled a determination by the Commissioner of Education. The Commissioner had previously ruled that tenured teaching assistants (TAs) are entitled to lay-off seniority protection under Education Law § 3013 (2), classifying them as "teachers." The Supreme Court sided with the petitioner, asserting that TAs are not teachers and therefore lack such seniority rights. However, the appellate court disagreed, finding the Commissioner's interpretation to be reasonable and consistent with legislative intent and other similar statutes. The court concluded that denying TAs lay-off seniority while granting them recall seniority would create an illogical outcome.

Education LawSeniority RightsTeaching AssistantsLay-off ProtectionTeacher DefinitionCPLR Article 78Commissioner of EducationAppellate DivisionStatutory InterpretationTenure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2002

Baker v. Board of Education

This case involves an appeal from an order denying defendants' motions to dismiss a complaint filed by 11 former teachers from the Hoosick Falls Central School District. The teachers retired between 1999 and 2001, prior to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) being finalized in May 2001. This CBA included retroactive 5% salary raises for current employees, but excluded retirees. The plaintiffs subsequently sued the Board of Education, the Teachers Association, and the Superintendent, alleging a breach of the union's duty of fair representation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the action was timely, the plaintiffs had standing, and the Teachers Association had a continuing duty to represent the former employees in negotiations concerning terms retroactively applied to their period of active employment.

Duty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementRetiree BenefitsRetroactive PayUnion RepresentationPublic EmployeesStatute of LimitationsStandingBreach of DutyGrievance Process
References
16
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02907 [238 AD3d 849]
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2025

Chappaqua Congress of Teachers v. Board of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist.

This case addresses a dispute between the Chappaqua Congress of Teachers (CCT) and individual retirees against the Chappaqua Central School District regarding the discontinuation of Medicare Part B IRMAA surcharge reimbursements. The plaintiffs brought a hybrid action alleging breach of contract and seeking relief under CPLR article 78. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the entire action. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the CPLR article 78 claims due to lack of standing for the CCT and Debellis, and statute of limitations for the individual plaintiffs. However, the court reinstated the breach of contract cause of action for the CCT and the majority of individual plaintiffs, finding that the CCT had standing as a party to the relevant agreement and the retirees were not bound by the CBA's grievance procedures.

Medicare Part BIRMAA SurchargesRetiree Health BenefitsBreach of ContractCPLR Article 78 ProceedingStanding DoctrineStatute of LimitationsCollective Bargaining AgreementsExhaustion of Administrative RemediesAppellate Division
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lederman v. Board of Education

The case involves plaintiffs moving to punish the Board of Education and Superintendent William Jansen for contempt of court, alleging violation of a 1949 judgment by Mr. Justice Hearit. The previous judgment declared parts of the Feinberg Law (Civil Service Law § 12a, Education Law § 3022, and Board of Regents' Rules § 254) null and unconstitutional, enjoining the Board from enforcing them. Dr. Jansen later questioned a teacher about Communist party membership, claiming authority under Education Law § 2523, not the Feinberg Law. The court, presided over by Justice Beldook, found no subterfuge and concluded that the inquiry was instituted independently of the invalidated Feinberg Law. The court determined that adjudicating the legality of the inquiry under Education Law § 2523 was beyond the scope of this contempt motion and found that the plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of the December 16, 1949 judgment. The motion for contempt was denied.

Contempt of CourtFeinberg LawTeacher Loyalty OathsCommunist Party AffiliationDue ProcessFirst Amendment RightsGovernment EmploymentInvestigatory PowersPublic School TeachersStatutory Construction
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,441 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