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

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

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1992

Town of Newburgh v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n

This case involves an appeal concerning an arbitration award related to a collective bargaining agreement. The petitioner sought to vacate an arbitrator's award that mandated salary increases for incumbent typist employees to match a new hire's salary rate. The respondent, Civil Service Employees Association, cross-petitioned to confirm the award. The Supreme Court denied the petition and confirmed the award. On appeal, the judgment was modified; the appellate court vacated the portion of the arbitration award concerning the specific salary increase and remitted the matter to the arbitrator. The court affirmed that the timeliness of a grievance is an arbitrator's domain but found the arbitrator exceeded authority by fashioning a remedy outside the collective bargaining agreement's explicit limitations. The case was remitted for a modified award consistent with the agreement's terms.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementSalary DisputeExceeding AuthorityProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewContractual LimitationsGrievance ProcedureTypist SalariesAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 1972

Azzato v. Suffolk County Legislature

This case involves an appeal by employees of the Suffolk County Department of Public Welfare from a judgment dismissing their petition. The petitioners sought to compel respondents to restore their salaries to a grade in effect before the repeal of Social Services Law section 79-a. This repealed law had mandated higher salaries for social service personnel based on graduate training, which the petitioners had received. Following the repeal, their salaries were reduced. Petitioners argued that they are "State employees" under Civil Service Law section 121(2), which prohibits salary reductions for permanent incumbents. The court's judgment affirmed the dismissal, agreeing with the respondents. A dissenting opinion argued for the application of Civil Service Law to county employees to prevent such salary reductions and raised concerns about equal protection.

Salary ReductionCivil Service LawSocial Services LawArticle 78 CPLRCounty EmployeesState EmployeesEqual Protection ClausePublic Welfare DepartmentStatutory InterpretationSuffolk County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weesner v. Electric Power Board of Chattanooga

This case involves a dispute over the amount of retirement compensation due to employees of the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Board established a retirement plan in 1944, later revised, which included employee contributions and a guaranteed minimum retirement income of 20% of their base salary. Following an overwhelming employee vote in 1956 to accept Social Security benefits, the Board assured employees that their existing retirement rights would remain unaffected. However, a 1958 revision to the plan altered the calculation of the minimum retirement income to include primary Social Security benefits, effectively reducing the Board's contribution. The complainants, who retired in 1957, challenged this, arguing they had a right to rely on the Board's prior assurances. The court found in favor of the employees, holding that the Board was estopped from asserting a contrary position and that the employees were entitled to 20% of their base salary irrespective of Social Security benefits.

Retirement PlanEmployee BenefitsSocial Security IntegrationContractual RightsEstoppelVested RightsPension DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsCompensationPlan Amendment
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09262 [178 AD3d 1036]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2019

Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn. v. Board of Trustees of the Mount Vernon Pub. Lib.

The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated a proceeding against the Board of Trustees of the Mount Vernon Public Library after an arbitrator's decision in a salary dispute. The arbitrator found that the Board violated a pay parity provision in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and awarded a retroactive salary increase, but controversially conditioned this upon the excision of the pay parity provision from the CBA. CSEA successfully petitioned the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to vacate this condition and remitted the matter for further proceedings. The Board appealed, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's amended judgment, concluding that the arbitrator exceeded his power by attempting to rewrite the parties' contract. The case was remitted to a different arbitrator for a new hearing on the manner and timing of parity payments.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementPay Parity ProvisionJudicial Review of ArbitrationArbitrator's AuthorityExceeding PowerVacatur of AwardSalary InequalityLabor UnionPublic Library
References
8
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. 2017 NY Slip Op 07437 [154 AD3d 932]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2017

Matter of Awe v. D'Alessandro

Margaret Awe, a dual employee of both New York State and New York City, sought to have her combined salaries aggregated for pension benefit calculations upon retirement. The New York City Employees' Retirement System (NYCERS) declined, considering only her City salary. Awe initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court granted, annulling NYCERS's determination. However, the Appellate Division reversed this judgment, confirming NYCERS's original determination. The court ruled that NYCERS's refusal to aggregate salaries from state and city employment was not arbitrary and capricious, citing statutory requirements that aggregated salaries must stem from 'city-service,' which her state employment was not.

Retirement benefitsPublic employeesDual employmentPension calculationCPLR article 78 proceedingStatutory interpretationCity-serviceNew York City Employees' Retirement SystemAppellate DivisionAdministrative Code
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Federation of Government Employees Local 1 v. Stone

Plaintiff Justin McCrary, a federal employee at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1 (AFGE Local 1) sued the United States for alleged non-payment of his promised salary, citing violations of Fifth Amendment and contract rights under the Little Tucker Act. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court first dismissed AFGE Local 1 as a party due to lack of representational standing. Subsequently, the Court addressed McCrary's claims, finding his constitutional claim for back pay preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act and unexhausted administratively, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court determined McCrary had no protected property interest in a specific salary due to his conditional appointment and probationary status, and no actionable breach of contract claim as federal employees derive benefits from appointment, not contract. Consequently, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was granted, and the Plaintiffs' Complaint was dismissed with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Motion to DismissFederal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)Rule 12(b)(6)Fifth AmendmentDue ProcessLittle Tucker ActCivil Service Reform ActBreach of Contract
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klumb v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System

The case involves a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) board's authority to define 'employee' for pension eligibility. Petitioners, former City of Houston employees transferred to a third-party entity (CCSI), sought retirement benefits or cessation of pension contributions, arguing they were no longer City employees. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained 'members' due to the City's effective control over their new employer. The trial court and court of appeals dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the statutory preclusion of judicial review for HMEPS decisions. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, concluding that the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority and that the petitioners' ultra vires, equal protection, and due course of law claims were invalid as they lacked vested property rights in the pension benefits.

Pension LawStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewUltra ViresSovereign ImmunityEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal EmployeesOutsourcing
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 8,598 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