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. ADJ408647 (FRE 0248555)
Regular
Apr 26, 2013

PATROCINA RAMSEY vs. SKYWEST AIRLINES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration in *Ramsey v. Skywest Airlines* and amended the prior decision. Specifically, the first paragraph of the "Orders" from the February 14, 2013 decision was rescinded. The matter was then returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding potential sanctions.

Patrocina RamseySkyWest AirlinesSedgwick Claims ManagementADJ408647FRE 0248555Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWCJsanctions
References
0
Case No. ADJ7850702
Regular
May 04, 2012

MARTA BLACHOWICZ vs. SKYWEST AIRLINES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant, Skywest Airlines, sought reconsideration of a February 21, 2012 decision. They claimed a mutual mistake in the mathematical calculation of permanent disability and asserted the stipulation for a job displacement voucher did not reflect the parties' true agreement. The applicant countered that the stipulation was a good-faith negotiated settlement. The Administrative Law Judge recommended denying reconsideration, finding the defendant failed to demonstrate mutual mistake. Ultimately, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalSkywest AirlinesSedgwick Claims Management ServicesSan Luis ObispoPetition to Set AsideStipulated AwardMutual MistakeMathematical Error
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc.

The plaintiff, a black female airport operations agent for American Airlines, sought damages and injunctive relief against the airline's grooming policy which prohibited all-braided hairstyles, specifically 'corn rows'. She alleged discrimination based on race and sex, violating the Thirteenth Amendment, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, arguing the style held cultural significance for Black women. The court dismissed claims under the Thirteenth Amendment and the facial challenges to the policy, determining that braided hairstyles are not immutable characteristics and the policy applied equally to all. It also denied class certification. However, the plaintiff's claim of discriminatory *application* of the grooming policy was allowed to proceed, and individual defendants Crandall and Zurlo were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationGrooming PolicyRacial DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Thirteenth AmendmentBraided HairstyleCorn RowsClass Action Denial
References
17
Case No. 16-01138 (SHL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2018

Krakowski v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re Amr Corp.)

Plaintiffs John Krakowski, Kevin Horner, and M. Alicia Sikes, former TWA pilots now employed by American Airlines, challenged an interest arbitration award concerning their contractual rights, alleging due process violations due to arbitrator bias and ex parte communications. The arbitration, conducted under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), resolved an impasse between American Airlines and the Allied Pilots Association (APA) regarding a new collective bargaining agreement and the seniority rights of TWA pilots. Defendants American and APA moved to dismiss the adversary proceeding, arguing plaintiffs lacked standing and the action was time-barred. The Court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that individual employees generally lack standing to challenge an arbitration award where the union and employer were the sole parties, and further, that the complaint was untimely under the RLA's 10-day statute of limitations, which the Court found was not subject to equitable tolling.

Arbitration AwardRailway Labor ActStanding (Legal)Statute of LimitationsEquitable TollingDue ProcessArbitrator BiasEx Parte CommunicationsCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Law
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiffs Marie Scott and Lori Fahs, employees of American Airlines, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their employer from prohibiting them from wearing Transport Workers Union (TWU) pins and from disciplining them for doing so. The defendant argued that the pins caused disruption to efficiency and customer relations, unlike pins worn by employees of certified unions. However, the court found no rational basis for the employer to forbid agents seeking union recognition from wearing union pins, especially since other unionized employees were permitted to wear them. The court concluded that the employer's actions constituted unlawful interference with the employees' right to organize under the Railway Labor Act and the Labor Management Relations Act, as it interfered with the designation of representatives and employee self-organization. The motion for a preliminary injunction was therefore granted.

Union insigniaPreliminary injunctionLabor lawRailway Labor ActLabor Management Relations ActEmployee rightsUnion organizingWorkplace disciplineEmployer interferenceCollective bargaining
References
7
Case No. 70 Civ. 3947
Regular Panel Decision

Maguire v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

Female cabin attendants, led by Maguire, sued Trans World Airlines (TWA) under the Equal Pay Act, alleging that TWA paid them less than male pursers for substantially equal work. The court found that TWA pursers, who serve on international flights, perform different and additional duties requiring greater skill, effort, and responsibility compared to both international and domestic cabin attendants. The court also determined that domestic cabin attendants and pursers are not employed in the same 'establishment' under the Act. The plaintiffs' labor unions, initially supportive of increasing the purser differential, were later realigned as defendants. The court concluded that TWA did not discriminate on the basis of sex and did not violate the Equal Pay Act, ruling in favor of TWA on the main claim.

Equal Pay ActSex DiscriminationWage DifferentialCabin AttendantsPursersFlight AttendantsLabor UnionCollective BargainingClass ActionJob Duties
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spielberg v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiffs secured a $2,225,000 verdict against American Airlines, Inc., for emotional distress caused by severe airplane turbulence. Defendants subsequently filed a motion for a new trial or remittitur. The court, applying New York's 'deviates materially' standard for remittitur in diversity cases, upheld the $150,000 awards for past emotional distress for most plaintiffs, finding them consistent with comparable New York verdicts. However, the court granted remittitur for plaintiff Melissa Katz's $150,000 award, concluding that the lay testimony from her mother lacked sufficient evidentiary basis to support emotional damages for the two-year-old child.

emotional distressremittiturairplane turbulencejury verdictNew York lawdamagespast emotional distressfuture emotional distresssufficiency of evidenceminor plaintiff
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greeley v. Kim Royal Dutch Airlines

Plaintiff Horace Greeley moved for class action certification against KLM Royal Dutch Airlines after his jewelry was lost during a flight and KLM offered a settlement based on tariff rules that Greeley claims are invalid under the Warsaw Convention. Greeley refused to settle and brought an action. He alleges KLM engaged in a fraudulent pattern by relying on these tariffs to limit liability for lost baggage. The court denied the motion for class certification, finding that Greeley failed to meet the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the court found that Greeley's interests were not coextensive with those of the proposed class members who had settled, and therefore his claim was not typical, nor could he adequately represent the class. The court ruled that Greeley's individual action could proceed.

Class ActionMotion DeniedWarsaw ConventionLost BaggageAirline LiabilityTariff RegulationsRule 23(a) RequirementsAdequate RepresentationTypicality of ClaimsFraud Allegations
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Fowler

The case involves twelve airline plaintiffs, including Mohawk, American, and TWA, seeking a declaratory judgment against the New York State Commission for Human Rights. The plaintiffs challenged the Commission's jurisdiction to apply New York's age discrimination provisions (Article 15 of the Executive Law) to their stewardesses operating in interstate and foreign air transportation. They argued that the state law unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce, was preempted by federal acts like the Railway Labor Act and Federal Aviation Act, and that the age discrimination provisions did not apply to individuals under 40. District Judge Frederick Van Pelt Bryan dismissed the action, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, the issues were not ripe for judicial review, and federal court abstention was appropriate given the unsettled state law questions and the potential for disrupting state administrative processes.

Age DiscriminationInterstate CommerceFederal PreemptionDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative RemediesJudicial ReviewAbstention DoctrineAirline IndustryStewardessesHuman Rights Commission
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fung v. Japan Airlines Co.

Plaintiff Brent Fung, a Port Authority employee, slipped on ice at John F. Kennedy International Airport and sustained back injuries, for which he received workers’ compensation. He subsequently filed negligence actions against Japan Airlines Management Corp. (JAMC), the Port Authority's managing agent, and Aero Snow Removal Corp., a snow removal contractor. JAMC sought immunity under Workers’ Compensation Law, arguing it acted as Fung's employer or coemployee. The court rejected JAMC's defense, finding insufficient working relationship to extend the exclusive remedy provisions. The court also dismissed claims against Aero, concluding Aero owed no duty of care to Fung as its contract did not require salting/sanding without request and its actions did not create or exacerbate a dangerous condition. The Appellate Division's order was modified, affirming the dismissal of claims against Aero, denying JAMC's immunity defense, and remitting for further consideration of indemnification claims.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive Remedy DoctrineAgency RelationshipSpecial EmployerCoemployee LiabilityNegligence ActionSnow Removal ContractDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 199 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