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. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colonial Super Markets, Inc. v. Liss

Plaintiffs (Colonial Super Markets, Hy-Co Supermarkets, Marcaro, Inc.), three separate retail food stores affiliated as "Bells," sued defendant labor unions (Teamsters Local 558 and Food Store Employees 34) and their officers for a permanent injunction against picketing and for money damages. The plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief pendente lite. The unions began picketing plaintiffs' stores, claiming employees were non-union. Subsequently, Retail Clerks Local No. 212 organized plaintiffs' employees, and plaintiffs signed a recognition agreement with Local No. 212. Despite this, Teamsters Local No. 558 continued picketing, and Local No. 34 later rejoined. Plaintiffs argued the picketing's unlawful objective was to coerce them into recognizing the defendant unions and breach their contract with Local No. 212, constituting interference with contractual relations. Defendants asserted lawful organizational picketing and that the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The court concluded that the picketing's real purpose was unlawful coercion and to induce contract breach, thus not constituting a "labor dispute" under Civil Practice Act section 876-a. The court also found its jurisdiction not preempted by federal statutes since the activities were not unfair labor practices under federal law. Consequently, the court denied defendants' motions and granted plaintiffs' motions for injunctive relief, with a termination proviso on November 1, 1957.

InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeUnlawful Labor ObjectiveCollective BargainingRecognition AgreementJurisdictional DisputeContractual InterferenceState Court JurisdictionPreemption Doctrine
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 1985

In Re Roblin Industries, Inc.

Roblin Industries, Inc., a Chapter 11 debtor, sought final court approval for a $12 million interim financing stipulation with Marine Midland Bank and Chemical Bank. United States Trust Company of New York, representing subordinated debenture holders, and other unsecured creditors objected to several key provisions, including a blanket waiver of potential claims against the banks, a stipulation of perfected security interests, cross-collateralization, and a super-priority for the lenders. The court found the waiver of rights and the pre-adjudication of lien validity to be inappropriate, as they could undermine the debtor's avoidance powers and circumvent adversary proceedings. Despite acknowledging the debtor's immediate need for funds and the difficulty in securing alternative financing, the court ultimately denied final approval of the proposed financing order. The existing interim financing protections were extended for a brief period to allow for a potential appeal.

Chapter 11 BankruptcyDebtor-in-Possession FinancingInterim Financing OrderCross-CollateralizationSuper-Priority LienCreditor ObjectionsWaiver of DefensesAvoidance PowersSecured DebtUnsecured Debt
References
17
Case No. 15-cv-4357 (PAC)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cory Chavis, an Asset Protection Manager at a Walmart in Suffern, New York, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Chavis sought a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays due to her Sabbath observance. While initially requiring her to use vacation days, Walmart later granted her accommodation. Chavis subsequently claimed a hostile work environment and discriminatory denial of seventeen promotions. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims of failure to accommodate and hostile work environment, as well as most promotion claims. However, it denied summary judgment on Chavis's retaliation claim and promotion claims for specific MAPM and ASM positions, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSabbath AccommodationWalmartEmployment LawNew York Law
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1976

Claim of Slotnick v. Howard Stores Corp.

This appeal challenges a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision affirming awards for total disability and death benefits to the estate of a district manager for Howard Stores Corp. The decedent was found injured and disoriented in Manhattan during work hours and later died. The core issues were whether an industrial accident occurred in the course of employment and its causal relationship to the death. Despite a lack of direct evidence and conflicting medical opinions, the Board found for the claimant, applying a statutory presumption that the unwitnessed accident arose out of employment. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding and the presumption was not rebutted. A dissenting opinion argued that the decedent’s actions constituted a personal pursuit, negating the presumption and the link to employment.

workers' compensation lawindustrial accidentcausal relationshipstatutory presumptioncourse of employmentunwitnessed accidentdeath benefitstotal disabilityappellate reviewdissenting opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Poly-Pak Industries, Inc. v. Collegiate Stores Corp.

Poly-Pak Industries and Collegiate Stores Corporation had a written agreement that included a broad arbitration clause. After the agreement expired, a dispute arose when Poly-Pak refused to return printing plates unless Collegiate paid outstanding invoices, some of which were not yet due. Poly-Pak initiated arbitration for damages, and Collegiate asserted counterclaims. Poly-Pak then filed a petition to stay arbitration of Collegiate's counterclaims, arguing the dispute arose after the contract's expiration. The Supreme Court granted the stay. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that a broad arbitration clause survives the termination of an agreement for disputes arising out of that agreement, and the present dispute concerning 'wind-up work' and materials was reasonably related to the original contract and therefore arbitrable. The petition to stay arbitration was dismissed.

ArbitrationContract DisputeArbitration ClauseContract ExpirationCounterclaimsStay ArbitrationAppellate ReviewCommercial Arbitration RulesScope of ArbitrationSurviving Arbitration Clause
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. 10-CV-5255 (ERK)(LB)
Regular Panel Decision

Rosario v. Valentine Avenue Discount Store, Co.

Plaintiff Julian Rosario filed a collective action lawsuit against multiple discount stores and Raymond Srour, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff sought conditional certification of the collective action, production of potential opt-in plaintiffs' information, and authorization to circulate a notice of pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, granted the plaintiff's motion. The decision was based on a 'modest factual showing' that employees across several stores were subject to a common policy of wage and hour violations, despite initial concerns about the scope of the class and the definition of similarly situated employees. The court outlined specific modifications for the notice of pendency, including defining the class as 'non-managerial employees who performed work related to the receipt, stocking, or sale of merchandise, or general maintenance/cleaning of the store,' and also addressed the content and dissemination of the notice, and the production of employee information.

FLSANew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum WageCollective ActionConditional CertificationEmployee RightsEmployer LiabilityRetail Industry
References
26
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salomon v. Adderley Industries, Inc.

Plaintiffs Geordany J. Salomon, Donielle Lewis, Dwight Edghill, and Shanroy Powell sought to amend their complaint against Adderley Industries, Inc. to include American Communications Industries, Inc. and several individuals (Lawrence Presser, Joseph Misseri, Vincent Cestaro) as additional defendants. They also requested to add a new claim under New York Labor Law Section 195. Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York reviewed the motion, applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b). The court granted the motion to add the new corporate and individual defendants, finding that the plaintiffs were diligent in seeking the amendment after new information emerged during discovery and that the proposed claims of employer status were plausible under the FLSA and NYLL. However, the request to add the NYLL § 195 claim was denied because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient good cause for its late inclusion.

Amendment of PleadingsJoinder of PartiesEmployer LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ClaimsDiscoveryGood Cause StandardUndue DelayFutility of Amendment
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 4,212 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