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

LIN Television Corp. v. National Ass'n of Broadcast Employees & Technicians—Communications Workers

Plaintiff LIN Television Corporation sought to vacate a labor arbitration award that reinstated employee Timothy Flynn after his termination for making threats. Defendants, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—Communications Workers of America, counter-claimed to enforce the award. The arbitration found no "just cause" for termination, converting it to a suspension and mandating a positive psychiatric evaluation for Flynn's return. The U.S. District Court, reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, confirmed the arbitration award. The court ruled that the award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and did not violate public policy regarding workplace safety, thereby denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendants' motion.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardVacaturEnforcementWorkplace SafetyCollective Bargaining AgreementJust CauseEmployee TerminationMental Health EvaluationFederal Court Review
References
26
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00502 [234 AD3d 1215]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2025

Matter of Ito (International Business Promotion, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Eriko Ito filed for unemployment insurance benefits after her employment with NHK Cosmomedia America, Inc. was terminated. The Department of Labor initially determined that International Business Promotion, Inc. (IBP), a recruiting and marketing company that placed Ito with NHK, was her employer and liable for unemployment insurance contributions. Although an Administrative Law Judge later ruled NHK was the true employer, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed this, finding IBP to be Ito's employer. IBP appealed the Board's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that IBP exercised sufficient control over Ito's work, including screening, hiring, setting pay rates, direct payment, and handling complaints, to establish an employment relationship.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorStaffing AgencyRecruiting BusinessControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawJudiciary Law
References
11
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05114 [129 AD3d 525]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2015

Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v. Union of Automotive Technicians

This case involves an appeal regarding an arbitration award concerning an E-Z Pass benefit for retired members of the Union of Automotive Technicians. The Supreme Court, New York County, modified the arbitration award to rule that the E-Z Pass benefit is a vested lifetime benefit. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this judgment, citing its disposition in previous appeals with similar issues. The court concluded that the Supreme Court reached the correct result based on established precedent.

Arbitration AwardE-Z Pass BenefitVested Lifetime BenefitPublic Employee UnionCollective BargainingAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentMemorandum of AgreementLabor DisputeAffirmance
References
3
Case No. 13-09-00067-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2013

CITY OF McALLEN, TEXAS v. Arnaldo Ramirez Jr., Raul Romero, Promotions of America, Inc., Nolana Entertainment, Inc.

The City of McAllen appealed a trial court judgment that found its denial of a conditional use permit for the Collage nightclub constituted an unconstitutional taking under the Texas Constitution. Appellees Arnaldo Ramirez Jr., Raul Romero, Promotions of America, Inc., and Nolana Entertainment, Inc., had sued after the permit denial led to the nightclub's closure and significant financial losses. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the City's actions demonstrated a severe economic impact and interfered with the appellees' reasonable investment-backed expectations, thus satisfying the criteria for a regulatory taking. The court also upheld the awards for lost investments, lost profits, and the loss of collateralized property (La Villa Real) and its associated rental income.

Regulatory TakingProperty RightsConditional Use PermitZoning OrdinanceTexas Constitution Article I Section 17Economic ImpactInvestment-Backed ExpectationsDue ProcessDamages AwardLost Profits
References
93
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gallagher v. City of New York

This appeal addresses whether the decision to prioritize a promotional list for firefighter candidates, composed of Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and paramedics within the Fire Department, over an open competitive examination list was arbitrary and capricious or violated the New York State Constitution's Merit and Fitness Clause. The Fire Department and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) determined that EMS personnel had sufficient overlap in responsibilities with firefighters to warrant a promotional pathway. The Supreme Court initially sided with the petitioner, the Uniformed Firefighters Association, finding the preference arbitrary. However, the appellate court reversed, deferring to DCAS's expertise and finding their policy of exhausting promotional lists before open competitive lists rational and consistent with Civil Service Law, even if it meant appointing lower-scoring candidates from the promotional list first due to their prior experience.

Promotional ExamCivil ServiceMerit and Fitness ClauseFirefighter AppointmentsEMTsParamedicsOpen Competitive ExamPublic EmploymentJudicial ReviewCivil Service Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bucknell v. Refined Sugars, Inc.

Plaintiff Lloyd Bucknell, an electrician employed by Refined Sugars, Inc. (RSI), filed an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Executive Law § 296, alleging age discrimination after being denied a promotion to electrical technician. Bucknell, 60 years old at the time, had previously failed a 1994 training program for the position and subsequently failed an oral examination for the same position in 1998, correctly answering only two out of nine questions. RSI promoted two younger employees, aged 30 and 31, who demonstrated their qualifications by passing the test. The court granted RSI's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Bucknell failed to demonstrate that RSI's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not promoting him (lack of qualifications) was pretextual or that age was the real motivating factor behind the decision, as deviations from seniority policies alone were insufficient to prove age discrimination.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextSeniorityCollective Bargaining AgreementQualificationPromotion DenialADEA
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.

Plaintiff Charles Reed sued Proctor and Gamble Manufacturing Company, alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Reed claimed he was denied promotion opportunities and coaching for a Technician Level 4 position due to his race, and that his complaints led to adverse actions. The Court granted summary judgment to the Defendant on Reed's claims of single-motive race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, finding insufficient evidence for a prima facie case in several areas. The Court found that the alleged denial of coaching was not an adverse employment action and Reed did not fully meet T4 qualifications. However, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on Reed's remaining claim for failure to promote under a mixed-motive analysis.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIITennessee Human Rights ActCircumstantial EvidenceMixed-Motive
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Equitrac Corp.

Plaintiff Kevin Smith, a black male Field Service Technician, sued his employer, Equitrac, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. Smith claimed he was not considered for a promotion to Senior Field Service Technician, with a white male being hired instead, and that he was placed on probation in retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. The court found that while Smith established a prima facie case of discrimination, he failed to provide substantial evidence that Equitrac's stated non-discriminatory reason (the other candidate was better qualified) was a pretext for racial discrimination. Regarding the retaliation claim, the court ruled that being placed on probation did not constitute an 'ultimate employment decision' as required by Fifth Circuit precedent. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, resulting in the dismissal of all of Smith's claims with prejudice.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextBurden ShiftingFifth CircuitCivil Rights Act of 1871
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1984

American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. City of New York

This class action was brought by employees, Police Communications Technicians (PCTs) and Supervising Police Communications Technicians (SPCTs), and their unions against the City of New York, its Mayor, and city departments. The plaintiffs alleged sex and race-based discrimination in wages, promotions, and other employment conditions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The city defendants filed a counterclaim seeking contribution or indemnification from the unions, asserting the unions caused or attempted to cause the alleged discrimination. The court dismissed the counterclaim, finding no statutory or common law right to contribution or indemnification under Title VII, citing the precedent of Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union of America. Furthermore, the court ruled that the defendants lacked standing to assert an independent claim against the unions under Title VII Section 703(c) due to a failure to meet jurisdictional prerequisites. The court also denied the defendants' request to amend their answer to assert pendent state law claims at this stage, but granted the dismissal of the counterclaim without prejudice to allow a proper motion to amend the answer.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationWage DiscriminationPromotion DiscriminationTitle VIIClass ActionContributionIndemnificationEqual Pay Act
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re National Ass'n of Broadcast Employees & Technicians

The National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians (NABET) petitioned to vacate an arbitration award from March 22, 1987, which enjoined the Union from interfering with the National Broadcasting Company's (NBC) training operations. NBC had sought expedited arbitration after alleged threats of picketing during strike preparations. NABET argued the umpire exceeded his authority, the award was vague, and demonstrated partiality. The court, presided over by Judge Cedarbaum, denied NABET's petition and granted NBC's cross-motion to confirm the award. The judge found the umpire acted within his powers, the award was sufficiently definite, and there was no evidence of manifest disregard for the law or evident partiality.

arbitration awardvacate arbitrationconfirm arbitrationlabor disputeunion interferenceexpedited arbitrationFederal Arbitration ActNorris-LaGuardia Actmanifest disregard of lawevident partiality
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 606 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