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. 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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stenson v. New York State Department of Transportation

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning a claimant's entitlement to reimbursement for certain expenses after a third-party settlement. Claimant received $50,000 from a third-party action for work-related injuries, with the employer's workers' compensation carrier consenting to the settlement and accepting a reduced lien satisfaction. The carrier ceased benefits to offset the net recovery, but a dispute arose over its contribution to litigation costs beyond the lien satisfaction for the ongoing offset benefit. A prior decision by the Appellate Division (84 AD3d 22) ruled the carrier was obligated to contribute and remitted the case. Upon remittal, the Board directed the carrier to reimburse the claimant $6,611.11 for litigation costs and approximately $2,800 in deficiency compensation due to an improperly extended holiday period. The employer and carrier appealed this Board decision, which the Appellate Division affirmed, finding the Board's determination on equitable apportionment and the carrier's failure to explicitly waive its offset liability supported by substantial evidence.

Third-Party ActionSettlement OffsetLitigation CostsEquitable ApportionmentCarrier LienHoliday Period CalculationDeficiency CompensationAppellate ReviewRemittal OrderConsent to Settlement Agreement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transport Workers Union of America v. Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100

This case involves a dispute between the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), a national union, and its local affiliate, Local 100. TWU initiated the action to compel Local 100 to adhere to its Appeals Committee's decisions regarding a contested election. Local 100 counterclaimed for reimbursement of costs incurred from re-running elections, alleging TWU breached its constitution and violated the LMRDA through the actions of its president and Appeals Committee. The court ultimately dismissed Local 100's counterclaim, ruling that TWU's actions were not the proximate cause of Local 100's expenditures for election monitors or re-run elections, as Local 100 voluntarily chose to incur these costs.

Labor union electionUnion governanceInternal disputeCampaign rulesElection irregularitiesLMRDAFiduciary dutyBreach of union constitutionProximate causationSummary judgment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. v. Transport Workers of America, Local 100

Plaintiffs Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. and Surface Transit, Inc. sued Transport Workers of America, Local 100, Transport Workers of America, and Michael J. Quill for damages alleging a breach of collective bargaining agreements following a 1962 strike. The Union defendants moved for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the arbitration clauses of their agreements. Defendant Michael J. Quill moved to dismiss the action against him, contending that Section 301(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act does not permit actions against individual union officers. The court found the arbitration clauses sufficiently broad to cover the strike issue and granted the stay of proceedings. Additionally, the court granted Quill's motion to dismiss, citing Supreme Court precedent that such actions are against the union, not its president.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementStrikeTaft-Hartley ActMotion to StayMotion to DismissUnion LiabilityIndividual LiabilityNo-Strike ClauseGrievance Procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Public Interest Research Group Straphangers Campaign, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) faced a significant budget deficit and implemented fare/toll increases and token booth closures. Public interest groups challenged these decisions, alleging that the MTA's public hearing notices were misleading and incomplete regarding financial details and alternative solutions. Lower courts initially sided with the petitioners, vacating the MTA's actions. However, on appeal, the court reversed these rulings, asserting that the MTA's notices complied with statutory requirements and were neither false nor misleading. The court emphasized the legislative role in setting disclosure standards and affirmed the MTA's authority, especially concerning the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority's toll-fixing powers. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the MTA's original decisions.

Public TransportationFare IncreaseToll IncreaseBudget DeficitPublic HearingsStatutory ComplianceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPublic Authorities LawCPLR Article 78
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fruin-Colnon Corp., Traylor Bros. v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

This dispute concerns a contract between a joint venture (plaintiff) and the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (defendant) for the excavation and construction of subway tunnels in Buffalo. Three primary areas of contention were examined: a "differing site condition" (DSC) claim by the plaintiff, the "watertightness" of the tunnels, and the "tunnel thickness." The trial court denied the plaintiff's DSC claim and the defendant's counterclaims for watertightness and tunnel thickness, while awarding the plaintiff reimbursement for remedial grouting efforts. Both parties appealed the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff did not establish a differing site condition and that the contract did not create a performance specification for watertightness, thus entitling the plaintiff to reimbursement for its grouting work and validating the denial of the defendant's counterclaims due to wrongful termination.

Construction contractDiffering Site ConditionsTunnel constructionWatertightnessPerformance specificationDesign specificationWrongful terminationPublic Authorities LawContract interpretationGrouting
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,878 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