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

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanley v. Thompson

The New York City Comptroller's determination from March 2, 2006, which established the prevailing wage for supervisor highway repairers (SHRs), was unanimously confirmed by the court. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the Labor Law § 220 proceeding was dismissed. Substantial evidence supported the Comptroller's finding that SHRs and foremen of highway repairs in Locals 1010 and 1018 perform comparable duties, based on thorough investigation including job specification comparisons and field surveys. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument that SHRs cannot receive the prevailing wage for manual labor not explicitly in their job specification, noting that their duties include "related work" and hands-on tasks necessary for supervision, thus exposing them to similar risks as their crews. Consequently, SHRs are entitled to the same prevailing wage as foremen performing comparable duties in the private sector.

Prevailing WageSupervisor Highway RepairerLabor Law § 220Civil Service ScheduleJob SpecificationManual Labor DutiesComparable DutiesCollective BargainingField SurveysPetition Denied
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donegan v. Nadell

Petitioner Donegan, employed in Nassau courts since 1967, was promoted to Court Assistant II and began performing data entry duties following the installation of a computer system in 1973. However, the job specifications for her title did not include computer skills. When a new statewide classification plan was implemented, her position was converted to Principal Office Assistant, a title also lacking data entry duties. Donegan challenged this classification, arguing her actual duties warranted a classification as Data Entry Supervisor. Despite her grievance being partially granted and a provisional appointment to the data entry supervisor role, she was ineligible for permanent appointment due to not taking the required competitive examination. The court affirmed the administrative decision, emphasizing that civil service classifications must be based on "in-title" duties defined by job specifications, not "out-of-title" work performed, and that data entry skills required distinct competitive testing.

Civil Service LawJob ClassificationOut-of-Title WorkData Entry SupervisorPrincipal Office AssistantCourt AssistantPromotional ExaminationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. M2000-01529-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2001

Clarence Lewis v. State

Clarence Eugene Lewis, a prisoner, sustained a severe hand injury while operating a punch press in a prison workshop and sought damages from the State of Tennessee for alleged negligence by his supervisors. The Tennessee Claims Commission dismissed his claim, attributing over 50% of the fault to Mr. Lewis's own negligence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed the record, assessing the supervisors' duty of care, breach of duty, foreseeability of risk, and causation, finding that while supervisors contributed to the injury by failing to provide proper training and safety measures, Mr. Lewis's act of placing his hand in the machine was the most direct cause. The appellate court affirmed the Claims Commission's finding of comparative fault, upholding the dismissal based on Mr. Lewis being at least 50% responsible for his injury.

PrisonerNegligenceWorkplace InjuryComparative FaultIndustrial AccidentSafety RegulationsDue CareClaims CommissionAppellate ReviewCausation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02083 [181 AD3d 949]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2020

Klingsberg v. Council of Sch. Supervisors & Adm'rs-Local 1

The plaintiff, Joan Klingsberg, a tenured principal, was removed from her payroll by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) due to financial improprieties. She was represented by Charity Guerra, a staff attorney from her union, the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators-Local 1 (CSA), during disciplinary proceedings. After it was revealed Guerra sought a position with the DOE, Klingsberg declined a new attorney and represented herself. Although the arbitrator upheld termination, the DOE Chancellor overturned it, imposing a six-month suspension and returning Klingsberg to a non-administrative teaching position with back pay, followed by a $200,000 settlement. Klingsberg later sued Guerra for legal malpractice and violation of Judiciary Law § 487, alleging a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court granted Guerra's motion to dismiss, finding the action preempted by federal law and barred by a prior release agreement.

Legal MalpracticeJudiciary Law § 487Federal Labor Management Relations ActPreemptionCollective BargainingConflict of InterestRelease AgreementMotion to DismissAppellate DivisionQueens County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Council of School Supervisors & Administrators, Local 1 v. New York City Department of Education

The Council of School Supervisors and Administrators (CSA) challenged the City's plan to reduce parking permits for school employees, arguing it violated their collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator initially sided with CSA, directing the reinstatement of permits. However, the Supreme Court's decision to confirm this award was deemed erroneous by the appellate court. The appellate court found the arbitration award violated public policy, was irrational, and exceeded the arbitrator's authority because the power to issue on-street parking permits lies exclusively with the City's Department of Transportation (DOT), not the Department of Education (DOE). The court emphasized that the award essentially transferred DOT's regulatory authority to DOE and undermined the city's objectives to reduce congestion and pollution. Consequently, the arbitration award was vacated.

Labor disputeParking permitsCollective bargaining agreementArbitration awardPublic policy violationAdministrative lawMunicipal authorityTraffic regulationDepartment of TransportationDepartment of Education
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. National Autotech, Inc.

Jim Roberts, the plaintiff, sued his former employer, National Autotech, claiming entitlement to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). National Autotech argued that Roberts was an exempt executive and/or administrative employee. Roberts was hired as a Service Writer or Manager Trainee, then quickly promoted to Store Manager and later Group Supervisor, before returning to Store Manager. The court examined his duties under the FLSA's "short test" for executive and administrative exemptions. The court found Roberts was an exempt executive employee during his time as Store Manager or Group Supervisor due to his primary duty being management, despite spending significant time on non-managerial tasks. However, during his initial five weeks as a Manager Trainee or Service Writer, he was deemed non-exempt. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationExecutive ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionManager TraineeStore ManagerGroup SupervisorPrimary Duty TestSummary Judgment
References
17
Case No. 02-21-00244-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2022

Greg Hanson v. Fort Worth & Western Railroad Company

Greg Hanson, a roadmaster for Fort Worth & Western Railroad Company, appealed a summary judgment that denied his claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). Hanson alleged that he sustained an injury after falling from a hi-rail truck, attributing the incident to exhaustion from excessive work hours. He argued that the Railroad negligently assigned him duties beyond his physical capacity, a condition he claimed the Railroad was aware of through his conversations with his supervisor the day prior to his injury. The Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas, at Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's summary judgment. The court found that Hanson's statements to his supervisor regarding long hours were not sufficient to reasonably infer that the Railroad had notice of his dangerous exhaustion. Furthermore, the court declined to impose a duty on the Railroad to monitor an experienced employee's fitness to work, emphasizing the employee's responsibility to report fatigue.

FELASummary JudgmentEmployee ExhaustionNegligenceForeseeabilityDuty of EmployerRailroad IndustryWork InjuryAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
53
Showing 1-10 of 3,862 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