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

New York Public Interest Research Group Straphangers Campaign, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) faced a significant budget deficit and implemented fare/toll increases and token booth closures. Public interest groups challenged these decisions, alleging that the MTA's public hearing notices were misleading and incomplete regarding financial details and alternative solutions. Lower courts initially sided with the petitioners, vacating the MTA's actions. However, on appeal, the court reversed these rulings, asserting that the MTA's notices complied with statutory requirements and were neither false nor misleading. The court emphasized the legislative role in setting disclosure standards and affirmed the MTA's authority, especially concerning the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority's toll-fixing powers. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the MTA's original decisions.

Public TransportationFare IncreaseToll IncreaseBudget DeficitPublic HearingsStatutory ComplianceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPublic Authorities LawCPLR Article 78
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 252, Transport Workers Union of America v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The court annulled the determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) dated August 6, 1981, which had found Local 252, Transport Workers Union of America, ALF-CIO, engaged in a strike. The court agreed with the dissenting opinion of Chairman Harold R. Newman and the hearing officer's decision, finding PERB's conclusion unsupported by evidence and arbitrary. The court distinguished Matter of Dowling v Bowen as inapplicable due to the unique challenges faced by bus drivers, citing Van Vlack v Ternullo as more relevant. The decision also noted that the union executive's actions demonstrated good faith despite a prior 'big trouble' remark.

Public Employment Relations BoardStrikeUnion DisputeCollective BargainingArbitrary and CapriciousEvidentiary ReviewBus DriversVehicle and Traffic LawGood FaithAnnulment
References
2
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Decker v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including the United Transportation Union and Local 377, initiated an action in state court against CSX Transport, Inc. (CSXT), alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act's status quo provisions related to CSXT's planned sale of a rail line. CSXT moved for dismissal, contending that the plaintiffs' notice was barred by a national agreement moratorium, Local 377 lacked standing, the carrier held a unilateral right to sell lines, and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) preempted RLA Section 6. Conversely, plaintiffs asserted that the National Mediation Board had docketed their dispute as major, the sale was a tactic to circumvent RLA provisions, and the moratorium did not apply to them due to local bargaining representation. The court, drawing parallels with Railway Labor Executives’ Association v. Staten Island Railroad Corp., determined that the ICC's authorization of the sale brought the matter under its exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court found itself unable to provide a remedy without interfering with the ICC's order and granted CSXT's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Railway Labor ActStatus Quo ProvisionsMotion to DismissRail Line SaleInterstate Commerce CommissionPreemptionCollective BargainingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefJurisdiction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determined that a follow-up medical appointment for a union member did not constitute an investigatory interview requiring union representation. This decision reversed a prior ruling by an Administrative Law Judge. The Appellate Court, reviewing PERB's determination under the substantial evidence standard, found that the medical appointment's purpose was to assess the employee's progress in relapse prevention education, not for disciplinary action. Consequently, the court confirmed PERB's determination, denied the petitioner's petition, and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Labour PracticeUnion RepresentationInvestigatory InterviewMedical AppointmentRelapse PreventionPERBCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceAdministrative LawEmployee Rights
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Progressive Transportation Services, Inc. v. County of Essex

Progressive Transportation Services, Inc. sued Essex County, James Pierce, and Clifford Donaldson, asserting a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim for First Amendment retaliation and a state law claim for breach of contract. Progressive claimed the County retaliated against it by rejecting bids and withholding funds after Progressive combined transportation routes for efficiency, arguing this was a matter of public concern regarding taxpayer money and fuel usage. The Court determined that Progressive's speech, made in the context of contract negotiations to secure payment, was primarily an issue of economic self-interest and not a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal claim with prejudice. The state law breach of contract claim was dismissed without prejudice, as the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after the dismissal of the federal claim.

42 U.S.C. Section 1983Civil RightsBreach of ContractFirst Amendment RetaliationSummary JudgmentGovernment ContractsFreedom of SpeechPublic Concern DoctrineSupplemental JurisdictionGovernmental Waste
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union of Greater New York

Jose Cruz, a bus operator for the New York City Transit Authority (TA), was found to have color-blindness during a routine physical examination. A physician recommended a road test to assess his fitness, but the TA refused, asserting the test was non-medical and insufficient to evaluate his ability to meet required vision standards under Vehicle and Traffic Law and NYCRR regulations. Subsequently, the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100 (TWU) filed a grievance on Cruz's behalf, which the TA denied, leading to a request for binding arbitration. The TA then initiated a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, arguing the grievance was not arbitrable. The Supreme Court denied the TA's petition and dismissed the proceeding, a decision that was ultimately affirmed by the appellate court, which found no statutory or public policy prohibitions against arbitrating the dispute under the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementbus operatorcolor-blindnessvision requirementsroad testpublic sectorarbitrabilitygrievanceappellate decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a June 16, 2009, determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB's determination reversed an earlier administrative law judge's decision, finding that the NYCTA had committed an improper labor practice by unilaterally implementing new standards for off-duty secondary employment without negotiating with the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100. PERB directed the NYCTA to make whole certain employees and subsequently filed a cross-petition to enforce its order. The court found that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence, noting that an employer's restriction on nonworking time is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Taylor Law. Consequently, the court confirmed PERB's determination, denied the NYCTA's petition, dismissed the proceeding on the merits, and granted PERB's cross-petition for enforcement of its remedial order.

Public EmploymentLabor RelationsCollective BargainingImproper Labor PracticeOff-Duty Secondary EmploymentCivil Service LawTaylor LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Law
References
21
Case No. 02 Civ. 7659(SAS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100 v. NYC Transit Auth.

This case involves a dispute between several labor unions and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and its subsidiary regarding the legality of NYCTA's sick leave policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The unions challenged the policy's medical inquiry requirements, arguing they violated ADA provisions against inquiries that may reveal a disability. The NYCTA justified its policy by citing the need to curb sick leave abuse and ensure workplace and public safety. The court applied the framework established in Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional Services. It found that curbing sick leave abuse was a legitimate business necessity but only justified the policy for employees on a narrowly-defined "sick leave control list." The court also determined that ensuring safety was a vital business necessity, justifying the policy for safety-sensitive employees, specifically bus operators, but required further factual development for other employee groups. Ultimately, the court issued a declaratory judgment, clarifying the permissible scope of the policy's medical inquiries and rejecting the Authority's defenses of unclean hands and laches.

ADA ComplianceSick Leave PolicyMedical InquiryEmployment DiscriminationBusiness Necessity DefenseWorkplace SafetyPublic SafetyLabor Union LitigationCollective BargainingBus Operator
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2006

Lawrence Teachers Ass'n v. Lawrence Public Schools

This case concerns an appeal by the Lawrence Teachers Association (petitioner) challenging the denial of their petition to confirm an arbitration award. The arbitration award mandated Lawrence Public Schools (respondent) to designate members of the petitioner’s bargaining unit to provide special education services outside the school district's geographical boundaries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the petition, concluding the award was unenforceable. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the arbitration award violated public policy as it contravened Education Law former § 3602-c (2). This statute required the school district to contract with the school district where the nonpublic school attended by the pupil was located for such services. The court emphasized that an arbitrator's award cannot stand if it is contrary to well-defined statutory law and public policy.

Arbitration AwardPublic PolicyEducation LawSpecial Education ServicesCollective BargainingStipulationStatutory ViolationAppellate ReviewSchool District ObligationsLabor Dispute
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,067 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