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. 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. 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

LIN Television Corp. v. National Ass'n of Broadcast Employees & Technicians—Communications Workers

Plaintiff LIN Television Corporation sought to vacate a labor arbitration award that reinstated employee Timothy Flynn after his termination for making threats. Defendants, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—Communications Workers of America, counter-claimed to enforce the award. The arbitration found no "just cause" for termination, converting it to a suspension and mandating a positive psychiatric evaluation for Flynn's return. The U.S. District Court, reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, confirmed the arbitration award. The court ruled that the award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and did not violate public policy regarding workplace safety, thereby denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendants' motion.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardVacaturEnforcementWorkplace SafetyCollective Bargaining AgreementJust CauseEmployee TerminationMental Health EvaluationFederal Court Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Civil Service Employees Association (C.S.E.A.) filed an Article 78 application to challenge actions taken by the City of White Plains and the Public Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.). C.S.E.A. sought to vacate a resolution where the City recognized a different employee organization (S.I.W.A.) for a portion of its employees, thereby altering C.S.E.A.'s bargaining unit, and to annul a P.E.R.B. order upholding the City's action. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing improper venue and that it was not a proper party. The court determined that Albany County was the correct venue and that the City was a proper party. The central issue was whether the City could unilaterally change bargaining unit composition without C.S.E.A.'s consent or a decertification petition. The court ultimately denied C.S.E.A.'s requested relief, agreeing with P.E.R.B. that public employers can recognize different employee organizations once an incumbent's unchallenged representation status period expires, in accordance with Civil Service Law sections 204 and 208.

Public Employment RelationsCollective Bargaining UnitsEmployee Organization RecognitionTaylor LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 CPLRBargaining Unit AlterationDecertification ProceedingsPublic Employer RightsVenue Disputes
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Ass'n of Publishers' Employees, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co.

Plaintiffs, the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees, Inc. (IAPE) and ten Canadian employees, sued defendant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The plaintiffs claimed that Dow Jones violated its fiduciary obligations by changing the Profit-Sharing Retirement Plan's benefit allocation formula, which resulted in reduced benefits for Canadian employees due to currency conversion. Dow Jones argued it was not a fiduciary for this specific act or that the action was not a breach, asserting the right to amend plan contributions. The court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, found that Dow Jones's fiduciary duties under ERISA did not extend to the method of calculating employer contributions or modifying non-accrued benefits. The court concluded that both the Plan provisions and ERISA allowed prospective changes in contributions by the employer, and therefore, Dow Jones had not breached any fiduciary duty. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

ERISAFiduciary DutyProfit-Sharing PlanBenefit AllocationSummary JudgmentNon-Accrued BenefitsPlan AmendmentEmployer ContributionsCanadian EmployeesDistrict Court
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,458 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