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

Valdes v. Swift Transportation Co.

Lori A. Valdes sued her employer, Swift Transportation Co., Inc., for alleged sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Swift Transportation moved to dismiss the case or, alternatively, to compel arbitration, citing two signed arbitration agreements. District Judge Chin granted Swift's motion to dismiss, holding that the arbitration agreements were enforceable under New York law, even if the Federal Arbitration Act did not apply to Valdes as a transportation worker. The court rejected Valdes' arguments regarding the arbitration agreement's validity, waiver of jury trial rights, forum inadequacy, unconscionability, and cost burden. The action was dismissed without prejudice, allowing for reinstatement if further proceedings are needed post-arbitration.

Employment LawSexual HarassmentRetaliationArbitration AgreementTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawFAA ExemptionMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Arbitration Act
References
56
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Decker v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including the United Transportation Union and Local 377, initiated an action in state court against CSX Transport, Inc. (CSXT), alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act's status quo provisions related to CSXT's planned sale of a rail line. CSXT moved for dismissal, contending that the plaintiffs' notice was barred by a national agreement moratorium, Local 377 lacked standing, the carrier held a unilateral right to sell lines, and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) preempted RLA Section 6. Conversely, plaintiffs asserted that the National Mediation Board had docketed their dispute as major, the sale was a tactic to circumvent RLA provisions, and the moratorium did not apply to them due to local bargaining representation. The court, drawing parallels with Railway Labor Executives’ Association v. Staten Island Railroad Corp., determined that the ICC's authorization of the sale brought the matter under its exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court found itself unable to provide a remedy without interfering with the ICC's order and granted CSXT's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Railway Labor ActStatus Quo ProvisionsMotion to DismissRail Line SaleInterstate Commerce CommissionPreemptionCollective BargainingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefJurisdiction
References
10
Case No. ADJ11252070 ADJ11527187
Regular
Oct 05, 2020

Gregory Ruth vs. Swift Transportation

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim by Gregory Ruth against Swift Transportation. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend findings, specifically adding neck and low back injuries to the applicant's claims for both specific and cumulative trauma. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's findings on injury arising out of and in the course of employment, rejecting the defendant's argument that the truck seat was not broken. The decision defers injury claims for all other body parts.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSelf-insuredInjury AOE/COEMedical EvidenceLabor Code Section 5701Cumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryNeck InjuryLow Back InjuryWCJ Credibility Determination
References
4
Case No. ADJ3896322
Regular
Oct 21, 2014

JEREMY SYKES vs. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION

This case involves Jeremy Sykes's Petition for Removal (denominated as a Petition for Recusal/Disqualification) against Swift Transportation and WCJ David Thorne. Sykes alleged bias by the WCJ, but his petition lacked required verification and was untimely. The WCAB denied removal, adopting the WCJ's report which found the petition procedurally deficient and Sykes's testimony at a prior trial exceeded the filing deadline. The Board also warned Sykes against disrespectful remarks towards the WCJ and the Board.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasApplicant in propria personaRules of Practice and ProcedureSanctionable ConductMedical TreatmentExpedited HearingOath of WitnessRecusal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swift Independent Packing Co. v. District Union Local One

This case involves a dispute between Swift Independent Packing Company and District Union Local One over a labor arbitration award. Swift sought to vacate the award, which was issued by Arbitrator Mario A. Procopio and favored the Union regarding work schedules and overtime pay under a collective bargaining agreement. Swift raised several objections, including alleged arbitrator bias, reliance on facts not in evidence, the award lacking essence from the agreement, and refusal to hear testimony. The District Court, emphasizing its limited scope of review over arbitration awards, denied Swift's motion for summary judgment to vacate the award and granted the Union's motion to confirm it, concluding that no grounds for vacatur existed and that Swift had waived its right to object to the alleged bias.

Labor ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardVacatur of AwardConfirmation of AwardArbitrator BiasJudicial ReviewWaiver DoctrineOvertime PayWork Schedules
References
19
Case No. ADJ4669093 (POM 0259861)
Regular
May 06, 2014

JAMES C. RIALS, III vs. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.; AIG CLAIM SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed James C. Rials, III's Petition for Reconsideration against Swift Transportation Company, Inc. and AIG Claim Services because the petition was untimely filed. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report and recommendation, finding the petition lacked merit due to its late submission. Furthermore, the applicant was warned that future filings could result in being declared a vexatious litigant.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedUntimelyVexatious litigantReport and RecommendationAdministrative law judgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSwift Transportation CompanyAIG Claim ServicesADJ4669093
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schreiber v. K-Sea Transportation Corp.

Nicholas Schreiber, a seaman employed by K-Sea Transportation, sustained injuries. After receiving maintenance and medical expenses, he agreed to K-Sea's arbitration program for further claims in exchange for advance wages. Following a deterioration of his condition and additional surgeries, Schreiber sued K-Sea under the Jones Act. K-Sea initiated arbitration, but Schreiber sought to stay it due to the substantial filing fees and his claim of being unaware of his rights. The Supreme Court granted a permanent stay, deeming the agreement unconscionable and a waiver of jury trial rights. This appellate court reversed, finding the agreement was not a release and the financial burden was speculative. The case was remanded to the Supreme Court for a hearing to determine if Schreiber's waiver of Jones Act rights and agreement to arbitrate was freely and knowingly entered into, considering his status as a ward of admiralty.

Jones ActArbitration AgreementSeaman InjuriesPersonal Injury ClaimWaiver of RightsFederal Arbitration ActEmployment ContractsAppellate ReviewRemand for HearingMaritime Law
References
21
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01785
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2017

Henvill v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Winston Henvill appealed the dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his petition to vacate an arbitration award, which resulted in the termination of his employment. The Supreme Court had granted defendants' motion to dismiss Henvill's complaint and denied his petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award based on a finding of misconduct. Henvill argued that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Benevolent Association (PBA) breached its duty of fair representation and that the arbitrator's fact-finding was irrational. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding no evidence that the PBA's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Furthermore, the court emphasized that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited to statutory grounds and does not permit reviewing the arbitrator's findings of fact.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationArbitration AwardEmployment TerminationMisconductCPLR Article 75Vacatur of Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationLabor Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Hare v. General Marine Transport Corp.

In this opinion, the District Court denied General Marine Transport Corporation's motion to amend a prior judgment that awarded damages to the Trustees of the New York Marine Towing and Transportation Industry Pension Fund and Insurance Fund. General Marine sought to amend the judgment based on the recent Supreme Court ruling in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, arguing for the application of a six-month limitations period. The court determined that DelCostello specifically applies to "hybrid 301/fair representation" claims and does not necessitate a departure from the previously applied six-year New York state statute of limitations for breach of contract actions, citing Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp. Therefore, the motion was denied, reaffirming the earlier decision.

Motion to Amend JudgmentStatute of LimitationsLabor LawBreach of ContractFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations ActHybrid 301/Fair Representation ClaimsPension FundInsurance Fund
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 844 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