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. 75-H-1459
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1976

Airline Flight Atten., Etc. v. Tex. Intern., Etc.

This case addresses a labor dispute between airline flight attendants and Texas International Airlines concerning the Airline's unilateral mid-month flight schedule changes. The core legal question revolves around whether these actions constituted a 'major' or 'minor' dispute under the Railway Labor Act, which dictates different resolution procedures. The Flight Attendants sought injunctive relief, arguing for a major dispute that would require the Airline to maintain the status quo and negotiate. However, the District Court found the Airline's justification, based on the existing collective bargaining agreement and managerial prerogative, to be reasonable and made in good faith. Consequently, the court ruled the dispute was 'minor,' falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Board of Adjustment for contract interpretation, and thus denied the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and granted summary judgment for the defendant.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeStatus Quo ObligationSystem Board of AdjustmentCollective Bargaining AgreementMid-month Schedule ChangesInjunctive ReliefSummary JudgmentContract Interpretation
References
20
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 Specifically, the first paragraph of the "Orders" from the February 14, 2013 decision was rescinded.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

Airline Flight Attendants in the Service of Texas International Airlines, Inc. v. Texas International Airlines, Inc.

This case addresses a labor dispute between Airline Flight Attendants, represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International, and Texas International Airlines, Inc. The Flight Attendants sought injunctive relief to stop the Airline's unilateral flight cancellations and rerouting, arguing these were violations of the Railway Labor Act. The central legal question was whether the dispute over mid-month schedule changes constituted a 'major' or 'minor' dispute under the R.L.A., which dictates different resolution procedures. The Court determined that the Airline's actions were arguably covered by existing collective bargaining agreements or fell under its managerial prerogative, thus classifying it as a minor dispute. Consequently, the District Court denied the Flight Attendants' request for an injunction and granted the Airline's motion for summary judgment, remanding the matter to the System Board of Adjustment.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementInjunctionSummary JudgmentFlight AttendantsAirline IndustrySchedule ChangesStatus Quo
References
15
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kiefer v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

Norma L. Kiefer and her husband Robert C. Kiefer (the Kiefers) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Continental Airlines, Inc. The Kiefers sued Continental for personal injuries and loss of society after Mrs. Kiefer was injured by a falling bag from an overhead bin during a flight. Continental contended that the Kiefers' state common-law negligence claims were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, specifically 49 U.S.C.A.App. § 1305. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, holding that state common-law negligence claims for personal injuries are not expressly preempted by federal law, thus remanding the case for a trial on the merits.

Federal PreemptionAirline Deregulation ActPersonal InjuryNegligenceState Common LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFederal Aviation ActAirline Liability
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

America West Airlines, Inc. v. Tope

Michael Tope, a former employee of America West Airlines, Inc., successfully sued the airline for discriminatory termination under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act after an on-the-job injury. The jury found America West unlawfully discharged Tope and awarded damages. On appeal, America West challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding discrimination, Tope's mitigation of damages, and the mental anguish award. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings on discriminatory discharge and past mental anguish, but found the future mental anguish award factually insufficient. The court also upheld the exclusion of expert testimony from Tope's treating social worker. The case was reversed and remanded, subject to Tope's voluntary remittitur of future mental anguish damages.

Discriminatory TerminationWorker's CompensationRetaliatory DischargeMental AnguishDamage MitigationExpert Testimony ExclusionAppellate ReviewTexas Employment LawJury VerdictCircumstantial Evidence
References
23
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. 04-01-00286-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2002

Bernice Polansky, Joni Polansky, Darlene Leigh, Olivia Cornyn, Nora Brandon, and Jennifer Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., Ruth Landau and Ginger Hardage

This case addresses two main appeals: workers' compensation retaliation and invasion of privacy. Appellants, current or former Southwest Airlines employees, alleged wrongful termination under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, claiming retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims. The court found Southwest's 36-month leave policy to be a legitimate, uniformly enforced, non-discriminatory reason for termination. Appellants also claimed invasion of privacy due to disclosures made by Southwest to reporters regarding their EEOC charges, workers' compensation claims, and attendance records. The court concluded that these disclosures were not 'highly offensive to a reasonable person' given the appellants' extensive prior publicization of their 'sick building' allegations. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Southwest Airlines, Ruth Landau, and Ginger Hardage was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation RetaliationInvasion of PrivacyEmployment TerminationSummary Judgment AffirmedMedical Leave PolicySick Building SyndromeEEOC DiscriminationCollective BargainingTexas LawAppellate Decision
References
17
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
Showing 1-10 of 257 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