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

Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck

Michael Andrew Hauck, a deckhand, was fired by Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. for refusing to illegally pump bilges into the water, an act he verified as unlawful with the U.S. Coast Guard. Sabine, however, claimed his termination was due to other derelictions of duty. The case, a wrongful discharge suit, saw the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Sabine reversed by the court of appeals. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision, establishing a narrow public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. This exception applies exclusively when an employee is discharged solely for refusing to perform an illegal act that carries criminal penalties, with the burden of proof resting on the plaintiff.

Wrongful DischargeEmployment At WillPublic Policy ExceptionIllegal ActSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipTexas LawCriminal PenaltiesWhistleblower
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allied Pilots Ass'n v. AMR Corp. (In Re AMR Corp.)

The Allied Pilots Association (APA) sought a declaratory judgment that its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with American Airlines, Inc. (American) expired in 2008 and thus could not be rejected under Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. American argued the CBA became 'amendable' under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), keeping its terms in effect during negotiations. The Court, following Second Circuit precedent, found that the CBA did not expire but became amendable under the RLA, making it subject to Section 1113. Consequently, the Court denied APA's motion for summary judgment and granted American's motion to dismiss.

BankruptcyCollective Bargaining AgreementRailway Labor ActSection 1113Declaratory JudgmentMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentLabor DisputeStatus Quo ProvisionsAmendable Contracts
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas International Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n International

Texas International Airlines (T.I.) filed a complaint against the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), alleging an unlawful strike/work stoppage in violation of the Railway Labor Act and seeking injunctive relief and damages. The court issued several temporary restraining orders to prevent disruptive tactics like slowdowns and excessive equipment write-ups by ALPA members. ALPA counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought to vacate the restraining orders. The court granted T.I.'s application for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood that ALPA members were engaged in concerted action to disrupt operations. However, the court denied T.I.'s application to hold ALPA in contempt, citing insufficient clear and convincing evidence to establish union liability under the 'mass action' theory or for official encouragement or ratification of violations.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionContempt of CourtWork StoppageSlowdownAirline IndustryUnion LiabilityCollective BargainingFederal Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) moved to lift the automatic stay imposed during Eastern Air Lines, Inc.'s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. ALPA sought to continue three arbitration proceedings related to a pay-parity provision in their collective bargaining agreement, which had been automatically stayed. The court considered the federal policy favoring labor arbitration, the potential impact on the bankruptcy estate, and the willingness of arbitrators to allow the Official Unsecured Creditor’s Committee to participate. Finding that 'cause' existed to modify the stay and noting the availability of claims estimation under 11 U.S.C. § 502(c) as a safeguard against undue delay, the court granted ALPA's motion, allowing the arbitration proceedings to resume.

Bankruptcy ProceedingsAutomatic Stay ReliefLabor ArbitrationCollective BargainingRailway Labor ActPay Parity GrievanceChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditors' Committee ParticipationSection 362(d)Dispute Resolution
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Supplement B Pilot Beneficiaries v. AMR Corp. (In re AMR Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses consolidated appeals arising from the bankruptcy of American Airlines and its parent corporation, AMR. The appellants, a group of current pilots nearing retirement known as the “B Pilots,” challenged three orders of the bankruptcy court. These orders authorized American to reject its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the American Pilots Association, approved a new CBA settling B Pilots’ grievances, and allowed American to amend its pension plan by eliminating lump-sum payouts. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s orders, finding that the B Pilots were not 'interested parties' under 11 U.S.C. § 1113 to object to the CBA rejection, that the rejection abrogated previous guarantees, and that the grievances related to the old CBA did not survive its rejection.

BankruptcyAirline IndustryCollective Bargaining AgreementPension PlanLabor LawPilotsRetirement BenefitsGrievancesChapter 11Union Disputes
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the Flight Engineers’ International Association (FEIA) filed an action under the Railway Labor Act against Pan American World Airways (Pan Am) seeking a preliminary injunction. The unions aimed to compel Pan Am to revert to non-concessionary "white pages" agreements after January 1, 1985, arguing that prior "pink pages" concessions were temporary and had expired. Pan Am contended the "pink pages" constituted the status quo for ongoing negotiations. Presiding Judge McLaughlin, consolidating the trial on merits with the injunction hearing, ruled that the parties had explicitly agreed in their contracts that the "white pages" would define the status quo after the expiration of the temporary concessions. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, ordering Pan Am to construct future flight assignment bid lines in accordance with the "white pages," while denying the retrospective reconstruction of already issued January bid lines.

Railway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionStatus QuoCollective BargainingLabor AgreementContract InterpretationUnion RightsEmployer ObligationsBid LinesConcessionary Agreements
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pilot Travel Centers, LLC v. Joan McCray

This interlocutory appeal concerns a trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration. James Antonio McCray (Tony), an employee of Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, died from a work-related injury. Pilot Travel, a non-subscriber to Texas Workers’ Compensation, had an Occupational Injury Benefit Plan that included a mandatory arbitration agreement, which Tony acknowledged. Tony's parents and son filed a wrongful death lawsuit. Pilot Travel sought to compel arbitration, but the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court found a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement that bound the wrongful death beneficiaries as derivative claimants. It also rejected claims of procedural and substantive unconscionability, waiver by Pilot Travel, and exemptions under FAA Section 1 and TAA Section 171.002. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with compelling arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementInterlocutory AppealWrongful Death ClaimsFAA PreemptionMandatory ArbitrationUnconscionability DefenseWaiver of ArbitrationNon-Signatory EnforcementEmployment ContractTexas Workers' Compensation Non-Subscriber
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2006

In Re Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Comair, a regional airline and subsidiary of Delta Air Lines, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This decision concerns Comair's motion to reject its collective bargaining agreement with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) under Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. Comair argued that its pilot costs were uncompetitive compared to other regional carriers, leading to a significant loss of market share and fleet reduction. Despite ALPA's objections regarding Comair's profitability and lack of job security commitments, the court found Comair's proposed modifications to the agreement necessary for its long-term viability and that all affected parties should share the burden of reorganization. The motion was granted, allowing Comair to reject the Pilot Agreement and implement a lower cost structure.

BankruptcyCollective Bargaining AgreementSection 1113Airline IndustryLabor CostsReorganizationPilot AgreementFinancial RestructuringCompetitive DisadvantageUnion Negotiations
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1999

American Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass'n

The case involves American Airlines (Plaintiff) seeking civil contempt against Allied Pilots Association (APA), Richard LaVoy, and Brian Mayhew (Defendants) for violating a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued on February 10, 1999. The TRO aimed to end an illegal 'sick-out' by APA pilots, which began on February 6, 1999, causing numerous flight cancellations and significant financial losses for American. The Court found the Defendants' initial communications regarding the TRO inadequate and intentionally misleading, leading to an increase in sick calls. The contempt continued until late on February 12, 1999, when the Defendants issued effective 'Return to Work Directives,' resulting in a dramatic clearing of the sick list. The Court awarded American Airlines $45,507,280.00 in compensatory damages, holding the Defendants jointly and severally liable for the losses incurred during the two-day extension of the sick-out due to their contemptuous actions.

Civil ContemptTemporary Restraining OrderSick-outAirline IndustryLabor DisputeRailway Labor ActCompensatory DamagesUnion LiabilityJoint and Several LiabilityInjunction Enforcement
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Bankers Trust Co. (In Re Braniff Airways, Inc.)

Braniff Airways Incorporated, the debtor, initiated this class action seeking a court-ordered termination date for its Retirement Plan for Pilots, Part A, and instructions on fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA. The court set the plan termination date as August 30, 1982. It denied claims for lump sum distributions made in anticipation of termination, ruling they violated ERISA's priority scheme. The court also denied the request by Panagra pilots for segregation of specific assets, finding it would disrupt allocation priorities. Finally, the court ordered a modification to the definition of "eligible spouses" to facilitate actuarial calculations for annuities, limiting it to spouses married to participants at the plan termination date.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationDefined Benefit PlanFiduciary DutyLump Sum DistributionAsset AllocationPriority CategoriesActuarial CalculationsMarital StatusBankruptcy
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 87 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