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
Apr 08, 2009

Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Plaintiff James Tepperwien filed a Title VII action against his former employer, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., alleging same-sex sexual harassment by a co-worker, Yito Messina, and subsequent retaliation. The harassment included physical assault and sexually explicit remarks, which Tepperwien reported to management. Entergy moved for summary judgment on claims of hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. The court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment and a portion of the retaliation claim, finding sufficient factual disputes for trial. However, the court granted summary judgment to Entergy on the constructive discharge claim, concluding that the plaintiff's working conditions were not objectively intolerable.

Same-sex harassmentTitle VIIHostile work environmentRetaliationConstructive dischargeSummary judgmentWorkplace discriminationSexual harassmentEmployer liabilityFederal court decision
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1996

In Re the Arbitration Between Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. & Central Power & Light Co.

This case concerns a petition by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) to compel Central Power and Light (CPL) to arbitrate a dispute arising from an insurance policy and to stay CPL's ongoing state court action in Texas. NEIL, a Bermuda corporation, had issued an extra expense policy to CPL, a Texas corporation, which included a broad arbitration clause mandating arbitration in New York City for most disputes. Despite this, CPL filed a breach of contract suit in a Texas state court after NEIL denied its claim for losses. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected CPL's arguments for abstention and found that the arbitration clause was enforceable. Consequently, the court granted NEIL's petition, compelling arbitration and enjoining CPL from continuing its Texas state court proceedings.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract DisputeInsurance PolicyStay of ProceedingsJurisdictionAbstention DoctrineChoice of LawEnforceabilityFraud in the Inducement
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Utility Workers Union v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) challenged Section 606 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986, which mandates fingerprint checks for unescorted access to nuclear facilities. The UWUA sought a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction against the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) implementing regulation. The court dismissed the challenge to the NRC regulation due to lack of jurisdiction, ruling it a final order reviewable only by the Courts of Appeals under the Hobbs Act, and the action was untimely. Addressing the constitutional challenge to the statute, the court found that the fingerprinting requirement did not violate Fourth Amendment or privacy rights, deeming the intrusion minimal and rationally related to national security. Consequently, the plaintiff's motions were denied, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was granted.

Constitutional LawFourth AmendmentPrivacy RightsFingerprintingNuclear SecurityDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefJurisdictionAtomic Energy ActHobbs Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brodsky v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

This case involves Plaintiffs (Richard L. Brodsky, Westchester’s Citizens’ Awareness Network, Public Health and Sustainable Energy, and Sierra Club-Atlantic Chapter) challenging the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) decision to grant an exemption to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., regarding fire protection requirements at the Indian Point Energy Center. Plaintiffs alleged that the NRC acted unlawfully by granting this exemption, arguing it lacked authority, failed to hold public hearings, and did not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The court, treating the NRC’s motion as one for summary judgment, examined whether the NRC’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Ultimately, the court deferred to the NRC’s expertise, finding that the Commission had the authority to grant exemptions, was not required to hold public hearings for exemptions, and adequately conducted an Environmental Assessment. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAtomic Energy ActFire Protection ProgramExemption ChallengeIndian Point Energy CenterNuclear SafetyAdministrative Procedure ActNational Environmental Policy ActSummary JudgmentJudicial Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

COALITION ON WEST VALLEY NUCLEAR WASTES v. Bodman

This case concerns a lawsuit initiated by plaintiffs in August 2005, seeking to compel the United States Department of Energy (DOE) to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a 1987 settlement stipulation. Plaintiffs challenged DOE's revised strategy for managing radioactive waste at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, specifically its decision to divide the environmental impact review into two separate statements, arguing this breached the prior agreement and constituted impermissible segmentation under NEPA. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted defendants' cross-motion, concluding that DOE's approach was not arbitrary, capricious, or a breach of the stipulation, and that the waste management phase had independent utility. Additionally, plaintiffs' claim challenging DOE's authority to reclassify waste was dismissed as unripe. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Environmental LawNEPAAPAWaste ManagementNuclear WasteRadioactive WasteSettlement StipulationSummary JudgmentFederal CourtsJudicial Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC v. New York State Department of State

Petitioners, identified as the owners and operators of Indian Point Energy Center, appealed a judgment that dismissed their challenge to a modification by respondents, the Secretary of State, Department of Environmental Conservation, and Department of State. The modification extended a statutorily protected environmental habitat in the Hudson River, now called 'Hudson Highlands,' impacting the area near Indian Point. Petitioners argued that the modification lacked a rational scientific basis, constituted formal rulemaking without proper procedure, and that the denial of their discovery requests was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to the agencies' interpretation of their regulations and finding the modification rational, not formal rulemaking, and the discovery denial justified.

Environmental ProtectionHabitat ModificationAgency DeferenceCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentRegulatory InterpretationScientific EvidenceFormal RulemakingAdministrative ProcedureDiscovery Denial
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Restis v. American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc.

This opinion addresses a tort action where Plaintiffs Victor Restis and Enterprises Shipping and Trading S.A. alleged defamation, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran Inc. (UANI) and its officers. Plaintiffs claimed UANI's "name and shame" campaign falsely accused them of illicit business dealings with Iran, leading to significant reputational and economic damages, including a cancelled IPO and lost mining rights. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the defamation claim, finding UANI's accusations actionable statements of fact, not mere opinion or hyperbole, given their context. However, the Court granted dismissal for the tortious interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort claims. These secondary claims were deemed duplicative of the defamation claim, as all alleged injuries flowed from the effect on Plaintiffs' reputation.

DefamationTortious InterferenceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortMotion to DismissPleading StandardsFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechReputational HarmEconomic Damages
References
99
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Plaintiffs, a coalition of antinuclear and environmental activists, politicians, residents, property owners, and taxpayers, filed companion actions seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction against Con Edison. They challenged the utility's feasibility studies for potential nuclear or coal-fired steam electric generating facilities in Dutchess and Columbia Counties. Plaintiffs alleged that these activities constituted a public and private nuisance and violated Public Service Law § 65(3). Furthermore, they sought declarations that the activity was unconstitutional if deemed State action, and that Public Service Law article 8, governing facility siting, was unconstitutional. Con Edison moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs lacked standing and had failed to raise a justiciable issue. The court granted Con Edison's motions, finding that plaintiffs had not demonstrated material special injury and that the controversy was not ripe for adjudication, as the potential construction of a power plant was years away and highly uncertain.

Nuclear Power Plant SitingCoal Power Plant SitingEnvironmental ActivismDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefSummary Judgment MotionRipeness DoctrineJusticiabilityPublic Service Law Article 8Public Service Law Section 65(3)
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 97 v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

This case involves a dispute between International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 97 (the union) and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. The union sought to confirm an arbitration award that reinstated employee Patrick J. Rando, who was discharged by Niagara Mohawk after adulterating a drug test sample and later testing positive for cocaine. Niagara Mohawk counterclaimed to vacate the award, arguing it violated public policy related to nuclear safety. The employee, a Chemistry Technician at a nuclear power plant, had unescorted access to critical areas. The court reviewed the public policy implications de novo, citing NRC regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 26) that emphasize strict adherence to nuclear safety rules and the trustworthiness of personnel. The court found that the grievant's conduct directly contravened this well-defined public policy. Consequently, the court denied the union's motion to confirm, granted Niagara Mohawk's cross-motion, and vacated the arbitration award, dismissing the complaint entirely. Both parties' requests for attorney's fees were denied.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyNuclear SafetyDrug TestingEmployee DischargeCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessTrustworthinessReliabilityReinstatement
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taormina v. International Union

A guard at a nuclear facility was dismissed for failing to make a complete search after an alarm, leading him to sue his local union and its parent international union for breach of their duty of fair representation. The plaintiff alleged the union failed to pursue his grievance to arbitration, claiming an informal custom existed not to conduct complete searches. The court found no evidence of invidious discrimination and noted management's reasonable action given the sensitive nature of nuclear facilities and the plaintiff's undisputed failure to perform required duties. Consequently, the court ruled that the union did not violate its federally imposed duty, and granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Duty of Fair RepresentationCollective BargainingGrievance ArbitrationSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActNuclear Facility SecurityEmployee DismissalUnion's RoleWorkplace SafetyFederal Labor Law
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 37 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