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
Oct 24, 2013

Arena v. Delux Transportation Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Joseph Arena sued Delux Transportation Services, Inc. and related entities, claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York State Labor Law (NYLL), New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), and wrongful conversion. Arena argued he was an employee entitled to labor law protections, while defendants asserted he was an independent contractor. The Court applied the "economic reality test" under both FLSA and New York law, considering factors like control over work, opportunity for profit/loss, skill, permanence of relationship, and integral nature of the work. The Court found that Arena drove at his convenience, set his own schedule, retained all fares, and was not significantly controlled or supervised by the defendants. Consequently, the Court determined there was no employer-employee relationship under either FLSA or New York law, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing all claims.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorEconomic Reality TestTaxicab DriverWage ClaimsOvertime PayMinimum Wage
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transport Workers Union of America, Local 252, AFL-CIO v. Veolia Transportation Services, Inc.

The Petitioner, Transport Workers Union of America, Local 252, AFL-CIO, initiated an action against the Respondent, Veolia Transportation Services, Inc., d/b/a Nassau Inter-County Express Bus, to compel arbitration. The core dispute revolved around whether the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the parties allowed for multiple grievances to be heard during a single arbitration session. The Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration, while the Respondent filed a cross-motion opposing it. The Court found that a valid and broad arbitration agreement existed within the CBA, encompassing disputes concerning the interpretation and application of its provisions. Consequently, the Court granted the Petitioner's motion for summary judgment and denied the Respondent's cross-motion, instructing the parties to arbitrate the dispute.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActArbitrabilityDispute ResolutionUnionEmployer
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
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. ADJ162857 (LAO 0788261)
Regular
Jul 13, 2015

SANDRA GUNN vs. SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES), YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The WCAB denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an order for medical transportation services. The defendant argued no physician requested authorization, the order was vague, and transportation wasn't reasonable. The Board found the physician's reports clearly requested authorization, the order was sufficiently specific, and transportation was necessary for the applicant's industrial injuries. Furthermore, the Board indicated potential sanctions against the defendant and its attorney for misrepresentation, delay, and frivolous arguments.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryLive-in CaregiverPulmonary SystemOrthopaedic InjuriesMedical Transportation ServicesLabor Code Section 4600Treating Physician
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gotham Logistics, Inc. v. Local 917 International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Plaintiffs, Gotham Logistics, Inc., Bestway Services, Inc., and Bestway Logistics Transportation, Inc., trucking companies, initiated an action against Defendant Local 917 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its Secretary-Treasurer under the Labor Management Relations Act, alleging an unfair labor practice and tortious interference with contract. The dispute arose after the Union negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement with SWS, an employer of the plaintiffs' services, leading SWS to hire more in-house unionized employees and consequently reducing its need for plaintiffs' external trucking services. Plaintiffs argued this constituted an unlawful secondary boycott. The court, presided over by District Judge Wexler, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the Union's actions to be lawful primary activity directed at SWS concerning its own employees, rather than an unlawful secondary boycott aimed at the plaintiffs. As the federal claim was dismissed, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing the entire action.

Labor Management Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary BoycottPrimary ActivityCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) FRCPTortious Interference with ContractJurisdictionTrucking Services
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Progressive Transportation Services, Inc. v. County of Essex

Progressive Transportation Services, Inc. sued Essex County, James Pierce, and Clifford Donaldson, asserting a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim for First Amendment retaliation and a state law claim for breach of contract. Progressive claimed the County retaliated against it by rejecting bids and withholding funds after Progressive combined transportation routes for efficiency, arguing this was a matter of public concern regarding taxpayer money and fuel usage. The Court determined that Progressive's speech, made in the context of contract negotiations to secure payment, was primarily an issue of economic self-interest and not a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal claim with prejudice. The state law breach of contract claim was dismissed without prejudice, as the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after the dismissal of the federal claim.

42 U.S.C. Section 1983Civil RightsBreach of ContractFirst Amendment RetaliationSummary JudgmentGovernment ContractsFreedom of SpeechPublic Concern DoctrineSupplemental JurisdictionGovernmental Waste
References
16
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06041 [130 AD3d 507]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2015

Transport Workers Union of Greater N.Y. v. Bianco

The Transport Workers Union of Greater New York filed a complaint against Carmen Bianco, challenging a provision in their collective bargaining agreement. The union argued that the agreement's procedures for predisciplinary suspensions violated Civil Service Law § 75. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department. The appellate court concluded that rights under Civil Service Law § 75 can be supplemented, modified, or replaced by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, thereby upholding the dismissal of the union's complaint.

Collective Bargaining AgreementPredisciplinary SuspensionsCivil Service LawAppellate DivisionMotion to DismissUnion RightsLabor LawAffirmed DecisionJudicial PrecedentEmployee Rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 7,779 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