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

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

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
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

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
Case No. NO. 13-0515
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

John Klumb, Veronica McClelland, Vivian Montejano, John Gonzalez, Anita Robles, and Charmaine Pilgrim, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and the City of Houston v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, Barbara Chelette, David L. Long, Lenard Polk, Roy Sanchez, and Lonnie Vara

This case concerns a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) and whether its board members violated the enabling statute by requiring petitioners' continued participation in the City of Houston's defined-benefit pension plan. The City attempted to remove a division of employees from the pension system by forming quasi-governmental entities. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained under the City's control and payroll, thus falling under the "employee" definition for HMEPS membership. Petitioners, including individual employees and the City of Houston, asserted ultra vires and constitutional claims, arguing the board unlawfully redefined "employee" and denied vested rights. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority in construing the term "employee" and the petitioners' constitutional claims were facially invalid as they lacked vested property rights in pension benefits or contributions.

Pension SystemEmployee DefinitionUltra ViresJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityTexas ConstitutionEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal Employees
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Queener v. Magnet Mills, Ins.

This case involves employees of Magnet Mills, Inc. seeking unemployment compensation after a strike led to the temporary closure of the plant. The Commissioner of Labor denied their claims, asserting unemployment was due to a labor dispute and the employees did not meet statutory exceptions. The Chancery Court reversed this decision in favor of the employees. On appeal, the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Green, affirmed the Chancellor's ruling, providing a narrow interpretation of "grade or class" in the unemployment compensation statute to mean an organized, cohesive group, thereby qualifying non-striking employees for benefits. The Court also modified the decree regarding attorney fees, stating they must be approved by the Board of Review rather than directly ordered by the court.

Unemployment compensationLabor disputeStrikeGrade or classStatutory interpretationEligibility for benefitsAttorney feesJudicial reviewAdministrative lawTennessee law
References
8
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Independent School District v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local Union No. 1442

This case, heard by Justice YOUNG of the Texas Civil Appeals, involved several labor unions and individual public employees challenging the Dallas Public School District and its Superintendent, Dr. W. T. White. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Section 6, Article 5154c, V.A.C.S., concerning the right of public employees to present grievances through non-striking representatives. The District had refused to acknowledge the unions' capacity to act as such representatives. The trial court ruled in favor of the employees and unions, affirming their right to present grievances through their chosen representatives, provided they did not claim the right to strike. The appellate court upheld this decision, overruling the appellants' arguments against the scope of union representation for grievances.

Right to Work LawPublic EmployeesLabor UnionsGrievance ProceduresDeclaratory Judgment ActCollective BargainingRight to StrikeStatutory InterpretationClass ActionAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broadhurst v. Employees Retirement System

Nancy Broadhurst, a Child Protective Services specialist, sought occupational disability retirement benefits from the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) after suffering a back injury. The Board of Trustees for ERS denied her application, concluding her disability did not meet the statutory definition of "occupational disability," specifically the requirement that the injury result from an "inherent risk or hazard peculiar to a duty." Broadhurst appealed the decision, arguing the Board misinterpreted the statute and that her injury, though occurring while sitting in a chair, was related to the increased risks of her job. The district court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, the Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the act causing the injury (sitting in a chair) was not peculiar to her duties, and thus she did not satisfy the statutory criteria.

Occupational DisabilityRetirement BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTexas Government CodeInherent RiskPeculiar HazardState Employee BenefitsBack Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hand v. Stevens Transport, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan

Jean and Howard Hand appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment which dismissed their claims for health care benefits against the Stevens Transport, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan as time-barred. The Hands argued that the Plan's failure to comply with ERISA's notification requirements should invalidate or toll the contractual limitations period. The appellate court found that while the Plan's notice was non-compliant, it still provided reasonable notice of partial denial, and the Hands failed to exercise due diligence. The court concluded that the twenty-seven month contractual limitations period was reasonable and was not tolled by the Plan's ERISA non-compliance or the pursuit of administrative remedies. Therefore, the Hands' claims were barred, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

ERISAHealth Insurance BenefitsContractual Limitations PeriodStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDenial of BenefitsEquitable TollingAdministrative RemediesNotice RequirementsEmployee Benefit Plan
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 13,943 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