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

Jeu v. Retail Clerk's Union, Local 455

Mary Lynne Jeu, a pharmacist, sued Retail Clerk’s Union, Local 455 AFI^CIO, Van Blades, and Retail Clerk’s International Association for slander. The alleged slander occurred when Van Blades, a union employee, accused Jeu of being "paid off" by her employer to speak against unionization during a meeting. A jury initially found in favor of Jeu, awarding damages for medical treatment, injury to character, and punitive damages. However, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, requiring "actual malice" as defined by federal labor law precedents, a stricter standard than the jury's finding of malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that recovery for slander under the trial court's original definition of malice could not be sustained given the requirement of "actual malice" in the context of labor disputes.

SlanderDefamationLabor RelationsUnion ActivitiesActual MaliceReckless DisregardJury Verdict OverturnedJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil Appeals
References
6
Case No. 05-19-01264-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2021

MacY's Retail Holdings, Inc. v. Audon Benavides

Audon Benavides sued Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. for retaliation, alleging adverse employment actions after he participated in a disability discrimination case filed by a former supervisor. The trial court found in Benavides's favor and awarded damages for mental anguish and lost future earning capacity. Macy's appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for retaliation and the damages awarded. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of retaliation and the award for mental anguish, concluding that Benavides engaged in protected activity and suffered an adverse employment action. However, the appellate court reversed the award for lost future earning capacity, deeming the evidence legally insufficient.

RetaliationDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawAdverse Employment ActionCausationBurden-Shifting FrameworkMcDonnell DouglasDamages AwardMental AnguishLost Earning Capacity
References
34
Case No. 651884/2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2017

1552 Broadway Retail Owner LLC v. McDonald's Corp.

The case concerns a dispute between 1552 Broadway Retail Owner LLC (Landlord) and McDonald's Corporation (Tenant) regarding the fair market value (FMV) rent under a commercial lease. The core issue involved the interpretation of the "highest and best use of the demised premises" clause, which was initially ruled upon by the court in Landlord's favor before arbitration. Subsequently, Tenant allegedly committed misconduct during arbitration by relitigating this court-decided issue and submitting an expert opinion discrediting the court's ruling. Landlord moved to vacate the arbitration award, citing Tenant's misconduct. The court denied Landlord's motion and granted Tenant's cross-motion to confirm the award, determining that Landlord failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged misconduct prejudiced the arbitrators' decision.

ArbitrationLease DisputeFair Market ValueHighest and Best UseMisconductVacatur of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardJudicial ReviewCPLR 7511Contract Interpretation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamberson v. Six West Retail Acquisition, Inc.

Plaintiff Gregory Lamberson, a Caucasian male, sued his employer, Six West Retail Acquisition Inc., and individuals Sheldon Solow and Jeffery Jacobs, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and New York law. Lamberson claimed he was unlawfully discharged after complaining about the reassignment of an African-American employee, Derrick Caver, from a public-facing role due to his appearance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Lamberson was fired for poor managerial judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the race discrimination claims, finding Lamberson, as a Caucasian, was not a member of a protected class and failed to show a hostile work environment or infringement on his right to interracial association. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims, ruling that Lamberson raised a triable issue as to whether his complaints about Caver's reassignment were protected activity and if there was a causal connection to his discharge. Consequently, retaliation claims against Six West, Solow, and Jacobs survive.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIRace DiscriminationEmployment LawUnlawful DischargeSummary JudgmentManagerial DutiesEmployee ReassignmentHostile Work Environment
References
43
Case No. 05-14-01090-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2015

Zohra Khwaja v. Quik-Way Retail Associates II, LTD.

Zohra Khwaja appealed the denial of her motion for a new trial following a default judgment in favor of Quik-Way Retail Associates II, Ltd. The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion, applying the three elements of the Craddock test. It found that Zohra's failure to answer was due to accident or mistake, not conscious indifference, as she relied on her sister to secure legal representation. Furthermore, Zohra presented meritorious defenses to Quik-Way's tort and breach of contract claims. The court concluded that granting a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury to Quik-Way. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the default judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings, agreeing that Zohra was entitled to a new trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock TestBreach of ContractTort ClaimsAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureDue DiligenceAccident or Mistake
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nabi v. Hudson Group (HG) Retail, LLC

Plaintiffs Mohammed Nabi and Rifat Rizvi brought an action against Hudson Group (HG) Retail, LLC and Airport Management Services, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law for misclassifying managers and failing to pay overtime. Plaintiffs sought conditional collective certification for a nationwide class of various managerial employees. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' evidence was too localized to support a nationwide class and failed to demonstrate that the proposed class was

FLSANYLLConditional Collective CertificationClass ActionMisclassificationOvertime PayExempt EmployeesNon-Exempt EmployeesManagerial DutiesRetail Industry
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duane Reads Inc. v. Local 338 Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union

Duane Reade Inc. sued Local 338 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and its officers for defamation following a heated labor dispute. The union had published allegedly libelous statements on a website, press releases, and flyers concerning Duane Reade's business practices and treatment of workers. Duane Reade contended that the union as a whole should be held accountable or, alternatively, that the officers acted outside their official capacities. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, citing the long-standing New York rule from Martin v Curran, which requires unanimous member ratification for suits against unincorporated unions. Furthermore, the court determined that the cause of action was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because the union's communications were related to a protected labor dispute and did not meet the malice standard required to overcome preemption, also noting the republication privilege.

DefamationLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityNational Labor Relations ActNLRA PreemptionMartin v CurranFreedom of SpeechLibelImplied AgencyNew York Law
References
12
Case No. CIV-81-518, CIV-81-548
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Local 435 of the Retail Store Employees Union & Heinrich Motors, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order by District Judge Elfvin addresses two arbitration awards involving Local 435 of the Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, and Heinrich Motors, Inc. The unions sought to confirm the awards, while Heinrich sought to vacate or modify them. The specific issue before the court was Heinrich's removal of CIV-81-518 from New York state court to federal court. Judge Elfvin concluded that the motion to confirm the arbitrator's supplemental award was part of the original action commenced by Heinrich to vacate the initial award, and was thus untimely removed. Consequently, Local 435's motion to remand CIV-81-518 to state court was granted, and Heinrich's motion to consolidate CIV-81-518 and CIV-81-548 was denied.

Arbitration AwardLabor Management Relations ActRemoval JurisdictionTimeliness of RemovalCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Court JurisdictionState Court JurisdictionMotion to RemandMotion to ConsolidateNew York Civil Practice Law and Rules
References
13
Case No. 2003 NY Slip Op 23942
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2003

Duane Reade, Inc. v. Local 338 Retail, Wholesale Dept. Store Union, UFCW, AFL-CIO

This case arises from a labor dispute between Duane Reade, Inc. (plaintiff) and Local 338 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (defendants). Duane Reade sued the union for trespass, tortious interference, fraud, and defamation, seeking $1.4 million in damages. The union moved to dismiss, arguing failure to plead membership authorization for tortious acts and NLRA preemption of state claims. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the dismissal, finding that Duane Reade did not meet pleading requirements under Martin v Curran and that the state law claims were preempted by the NLRA, as the NLRB was already investigating related unfair labor practices. The court also denied Duane Reade's cross-motion to amend its complaint.

Labor LawUnion DisputeNLRA PreemptionTrespassTortious InterferenceFraudDefamationMotion to DismissCollective BargainingUnfair Labor Practices
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

Duane Reade, Inc. v. LOCAL 338, RETAIL, WHOLESALE, DEPT. STORE UNION, UCFW, AFL-CIO

Plaintiff Duane Reade, a large drug store chain, sought a preliminary injunction against Defendant Local 338, a union, to prevent trespassing and solicitation of its employees regarding a union affiliation election. The action, initially filed in New York state court for common law trespass, was removed to federal court by Local 338, which argued for preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Presiding Judge Kaplan considered whether the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of 'complete preemption.' The court concluded that Duane Reade's state law claim fell under 'simple preemption' rather than 'complete preemption,' meaning federal question jurisdiction was not established. Consequently, the district court ruled that the case was improperly removed and ordered it remanded to the New York Supreme Court, County of New York.

Preliminary InjunctionTrespassUnion Affiliation ElectionLabor Management Relations ActLMRA PreemptionComplete PreemptionSimple PreemptionFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionRemand
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 184 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