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

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
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Case No. 05-0558
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2007

Reliance National Indemnity Company, L&T, J v. and Lamar Construction, Inc. v. Advance'd Temporaries, Inc.

This case addresses whether a temporary employment agency, Advance’d Temporaries, Inc., 'furnishes labor' under Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code, thereby qualifying for a mechanic's lien. The dispute arose from Advance’d supplying workers to a subcontractor, Gonzalez Construction, for a project overseen by general contractor Lamar Construction, Inc. After Gonzalez failed to pay Advance’d, Advance’d claimed a mechanic's lien, which the trial court denied but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals, holding that Advance’d did furnish labor because it acted as the employer of the temporary workers, responsible for their hiring, payment, and insurance, despite not controlling their daily work. The Court rejected the application of the borrowed-employee doctrine in this contractual context, affirming Advance'd's entitlement to a mechanic's lien.

Mechanic's LienTemporary EmploymentLabor LawConstruction ContractsEmployer StatusTexas Property CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySubcontractor Payment
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05744 [174 AD3d 1206]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME AFL-CIO v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

The case involves Jarred Sansky, a probationary employee, terminated from his position as Cadet Leader 1 by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. Petitioners, including Sansky and the Civil Service Employees Association, challenged the termination under CPLR article 78, arguing Sansky had completed his probationary term and was dismissed in bad faith or retaliation for reporting neglect. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding Sansky was still probationary and petitioners failed to prove bad faith or retaliation. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the dismissal, holding that Sansky's temporary service in a higher position did not automatically count towards his probationary period and that allegations of bad faith or retaliation were unsupported by evidence. Therefore, Sansky, as a probationary employee, was not entitled to a pretermination hearing.

probationary employmentterminationCPLR article 78bad faith dismissalretaliationcivil service lawtemporary appointmentprovisional appointmentNew York State Office of Children and Family ServicesCadet Leader
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bogus v. Manpower Temporary Services

Karen Bogus, a temporary employee of Manpower Temporary Services assigned to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), sustained injuries after slipping on ice in her workplace parking lot. She reported the incident to Mr. Mike Hill, a TVA supervisor who acted as her primary contact for Manpower. The trial court dismissed her workers' compensation claim, ruling that she failed to provide sufficient notice to her employer. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed this decision, finding that notice to Mr. Hill was adequate given his role, and that Manpower had actual notice of the injury within 30 days. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination on its merits.

Workers' CompensationNotice RequirementTemporary EmploymentLoaned Employee DoctrineGeneral and Special EmployersScope of EmploymentIcy ConditionsParking Lot AccidentAgencyRemand
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of Machinists Lodge 1488 v. Downtown Employees Ass'n

This is an appeal regarding a temporary injunction granted by a trial court against the International Association of Machinists Lodge 1488 (Union) for picketing the premises of Downtown Chevrolet Company in Houston, Texas. The appellees, Downtown Employees Association and Downtown Chevrolet Company, had obtained an injunction restraining the Union from various picketing activities, even though the picketing was conducted peacefully. The Union appealed, arguing that the injunction was an abuse of discretion, violated their rights to free speech and assembly, and was granted in the absence of unlawful activities or damages. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, affirming that the contract between the Company and the Association was established before the picketing began. The court concluded that the injunction did not violate the Union's constitutional rights, as these rights are limited by the constitutional rights of the appellees, and that the picketing caused substantial economic loss. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court granting the temporary injunction was affirmed.

Temporary InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeFree SpeechAbuse of DiscretionConstitutional RightsAppellate ReviewUnion ActivitiesEmployer-Employee RelationsWork Stoppage
References
7
Case No. Docket No. 2016-07-0889, State File No. 57742-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2017

Kelly, Shameeka v. Regency Retirement Villiage

Shameeka Kelly, an employee of Regency Retirement Village, filed a request for an Expedited Hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits for an alleged injury to her left shoulder, low back, and neck sustained on July 26, 2016. Regency contended that the medical evidence did not establish the injury arose out of her employment and that she refused a light-duty position. The Court found that Ms. Kelly failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her injury arose primarily out of her employment. Consequently, the Court denied her requests for further medical and temporary disability benefits, scheduling a Scheduling (Status) Hearing for October 26, 2017.

Workers Compensation ClaimExpedited HearingMedical Benefits DenialTemporary Disability BenefitsCausationPre-existing ConditionsLight Duty OfferNurse Practitioner TestimonyOrthopedic EvaluationHerniated Disc
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blyer Ex Rel. NLRB v. P & W ELEC., INC.

The Petitioner, Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board, filed an application for a temporary injunction against Respondent P & W Electric, Inc. under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, alleging unfair labor practices. The court, presided over by Judge Gershon in the Eastern District of New York, found reasonable cause to believe that P & W Electric had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging employees Michael Finn, Dane Ault, and John Kwarta due to their union organizing activities. The court determined that the requested injunctive relief, which included a cease and desist order and interim reinstatement of the three employees, was "just and proper" to preserve the pre-unfair labor practice status quo and prevent irreparable harm to the union's organizational efforts. Despite the respondent's arguments regarding employee misconduct, potential financial penalties, and alleged delay by the NLRB, the court found these insufficient to outweigh the need for injunction. Consequently, the application for a temporary injunction was granted, ordering P & W Electric to cease unfair labor practices, reinstate the named employees, and post the court's order.

Temporary InjunctionNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesUnion OrganizingEmployee ReinstatementCease and Desist OrderSection 10(j)Reasonable CauseJust and Proper ReliefLabor Law
References
17
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 10,986 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