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

Brotherhood of Railway Carmen v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

The plaintiffs, six unions representing employees of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, filed an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendant's 'Voluntary Resignation Program.' Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) due to direct bargaining with employees and unilateral changes to collective bargaining agreements. Defendant argued the dispute was 'minor,' falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railway Arbitration Board (NRAB), as it involved the interpretation or application of an existing contract or past practices. The court determined the dispute was 'minor' because the defendant's claim of past practices regarding voluntary resignation programs was nonfrivolous, placing it within the NRAB's exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion.

Railway Labor ActCollective BargainingSummary JudgmentVoluntary Resignation ProgramNational Railway Arbitration BoardMajor DisputeMinor DisputeFederal JurisdictionUnion RightsEmployer Practices
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walling v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry.

The case determines whether railway trainees ("cubs" and "posters") are considered "employees" under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The plaintiff Administrator sought injunctive relief to compel the defendant railway to comply with the Act for these trainees, arguing they should be compensated and records kept. The court found that trainees primarily work for their own benefit and receive no measurable benefit for the company, thus lacking a contract of employment. Payments made to "cub" trainees were deemed gratuities or incentive pay, not wages that would establish an employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the court held that neither "cub" nor "poster" trainees are "employees" under the Act, and even if they were, the company's current practices largely comply with the Act. Therefore, judgment was entered for the defendant railway, denying the Administrator's request for injunctive relief.

Fair Labor Standards ActEmployee StatusTraineesRailway IndustryCubbingPostingGratuity vs. WagesInjunctive ReliefEmployer-Employee RelationshipContract of Employment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.

This case involves cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees (BRAC) and St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company (SSW). BRAC sought enforcement of Public Law Board 1186's Award No. 316, which found SSW violated a collective bargaining agreement by using an outside contractor, ordering penalty pay. SSW contested the award, arguing the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by granting penalty pay without explicit contractual language. The court, referencing Fifth Circuit precedent like *Georgia Railway*, affirmed the Board's authority to award penalty pay based on industry practice and the collective bargaining agreement's essence, even without an express provision. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment in favor of BRAC, denying SSW's cross-petition, and awarded BRAC attorney's fees and costs.

Summary JudgmentRailway Labor ActArbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementPenalty PayPublic Law BoardJurisdictionAttorney's FeesContract ViolationIndustrial Justice
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fowinkle v. Southern Railway Co.

This case addresses whether railroad employees fall under the coverage of the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1972 (OSHA). The appellants, the Commissioners of Public Health and Labor, attempted to inspect Southern Railway's Chattanooga Diesel Shop following a complaint, but were denied entry by the manager, who cited an exemption under state law. This prompted a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief. The Chancellor ruled that railroad employees were not covered by OSHA, a decision upheld by the higher court. The court's reasoning was based on a state statute that exempts railroad employees whose safety and health are 'subject to protection' under federal acts, irrespective of whether specific federal regulations have been promulgated, acknowledging the legislature's intent to avoid redundant state oversight where federal law has a preemptive scope in railroad safety.

OSHARailroad SafetyState LawFederal LawPreemptionStatutory InterpretationExemptionOccupational HealthSafety RegulationsTennessee Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Hampton

Glen C. Hampton sued Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company under the Federal Employees’ Liability Act for damages resulting from an injury sustained on April 20, 1960. A jury awarded Hampton $100,000.00. The railway company appealed, challenging the admissibility of annuity cost testimony, several instances of jury argument, and the alleged excessiveness of the verdict. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found the annuity testimony admissible and the jury arguments, though objected to, were not so prejudicial as to require reversal after curative instructions. The court concluded that the $100,000.00 verdict was supported by evidence of Hampton's permanent injuries, ongoing pain, suffering, and significant loss of earning capacity.

Federal Employees' Liability Actpersonal injuryrailway accidentdamagesjury verdictappealadmissibility of evidenceannuity costjury argumentprejudicial argument
References
9
Case No. W2007-00436-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2009

Thomas David Jordan v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company, A Corporation, and Norfolk Southern Railway Company, A Corporation

Thomas David Jordan, a Norfolk Southern Railway employee, sustained severe injuries when he was struck by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway train while performing duties between tracks. Jordan initiated a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) lawsuit against Norfolk Southern and a common law negligence claim against Burlington Northern. A jury awarded Jordan $4 million, finding Norfolk Southern 100% at fault. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the jury's verdict, rejecting arguments about state statute preemption, jury instructions on causation, and the excessiveness of damages. However, the court reversed the trial court's decision regarding an inter-railroad Letter Agreement, ruling that Norfolk Southern must indemnify Burlington Northern for its defense costs related to the claim.

FELA claimRailroad employee injuryInter-railroad liabilityNegligence causationFederal preemptionJury damage awardIndemnity contract disputeTrack clearance safetyWorkplace accidentAppellate procedure
References
94
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks v. Texas & N. O. R.

This case is a contempt proceeding initiated against the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company and its officials for violating a temporary injunction issued on August 3, 1927. The injunction aimed to prevent interference with employees' self-organization and representation under the Railway Labor Act. The court found that the defendants deliberately nullified the injunction by promoting the 'Association of Clerical Employees' while actively undermining the 'Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks'. The judge issued a remedial order, requiring the disestablishment of the company-backed association, re-establishment of the Brotherhood as the employees' representative, restoration of positions and privileges for affected Brotherhood officers and members, and a referral to government law officers to consider criminal contempt charges.

Labor LawContempt of CourtInjunction ViolationRailway Labor ActEmployee RepresentationCollective BargainingUnionizationEmployer InterferenceUnfair Labor PracticesJudicial Enforcement
References
18
Case No. W2017-02189-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2018

Lisa A. Boyd v. BNSF Railway Company

This FELA case involves Lisa A. Boyd, a railroad employee, who sustained serious injuries when a container crushed her at a BNSF Railway Company facility. A jury found BNSF negligent and Boyd zero percent at fault, awarding over $5 million in damages, later remitted to approximately $4.5 million. BNSF appealed, citing issues with contributory negligence, evidentiary rulings on expert testimony, and deposition use. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and that any evidentiary errors were harmless. The appellate court also upheld the jury's award for pain and suffering, finding it was not excessive given the plaintiff's permanent injuries and PTSD.

FELARailroad AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceJury VerdictMotion for New TrialRemittiturExpert Witness TestimonyDeposition Testimony
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 8,485 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