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

United Farm Workers National Union v. Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc.

Plaintiff United Farm Workers National Union (UFW) sued defendant Sloan’s Supermarkets, Inc., for misusing its Aztec Eagle certification mark, alleging violations of federal trademark and unfair competition laws. UFW sought a preliminary injunction, claiming irreparable harm to its consumer boycott of non-UFW lettuce and public deception. The court acknowledged instances of non-UFW lettuce being sold under the UFW mark but found them to be due to employee error, not deliberate malice. Sloan’s demonstrated good faith in addressing the issue. The court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that UFW did not show immediate, irreparable injury strong enough to justify such an extraordinary remedy, and that an injunction would cause considerable harm to Sloan's business reputation given its good faith efforts.

trademark infringementunfair competitionpreliminary injunctionconsumer boycottUFWAztec Eaglegood faithirreparable injuryjudicial discretionlabor dispute

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Eliserio v. Floydada Housing Authority

This case involves a lawsuit brought by individual migrant farm workers and the United Farmworkers of America (UFW) against the Floydada Housing Authority and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Plaintiffs allege that the Floydada Housing Authority operates substandard farm labor housing, violating the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The Floydada Housing Authority filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing it's not a 'person' under AWPA, an employment relationship is required for liability, and the UFW lacks standing. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion, finding the Authority is a 'person' under AWPA, no employment relationship is necessary, and the UFW has standing. The District Judge adopted this recommendation, denying the motion to dismiss.

Migrant WorkersAgricultural HousingFair Housing ActAWPAMotion to DismissStandingStatutory InterpretationPublic CorporationsEmployment RelationshipHousing Standards

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Waldbaum, Inc. v. United Farm Workers

Waldbaum, Inc., a supermarket chain, sought injunctive relief and damages against the United Farm Workers AFL-CIO (UFW) for picketing its stores. Waldbaum alleged unlawful purpose and illegal acts during the picketing. UFW contended that the picketing constituted a lawful product boycott aimed at persuading customers to refrain from purchasing grapes and lettuce from California growers involved in a labor dispute with UFW, and that such activity was protected. The court found that a labor dispute existed and that product picketing for a lawful labor objective is protected under Labor Law § 807 and the First Amendment. While denying a total injunction, the court granted injunctive relief against specific unlawful acts, including mass entry into stores, blocking parking lot entrances, and falsely chanting 'On Strike.' Other alleged misconduct, such as threats of violence and the use of certain slogans, was either not sufficiently proven or deemed protected speech. The court also enjoined the use of lit candles but allowed other symbolic expressions like effigies. The entry of judgment was reserved pending the completion of a trial on damages.

Product BoycottSecondary BoycottPicketingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefFirst AmendmentFree SpeechUnfair Labor PracticeUnion ActivityCalifornia Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA)

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Albertson's, Inc. v. Ortiz

Albertson's Inc. appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to Rachel Ortiz and John Downes, volunteer supporters of the United Farm Workers (UFW), who were arrested for leafleting at an Albertson's store in Austin. Ortiz and Downes sued Albertson's for the denial of their individual rights under the Texas Constitution. The central issue was whether the Texas Constitution's bill of rights is self-executing, creating a cause of action for damages against a private entity for infringing free-speech rights. The appellate court concluded that the Texas Constitution does not create such a tort action against private entities, distinguishing it from federal statutes like 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which applies to state actors. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a judgment that Ortiz and Downes take nothing.

Free SpeechTexas Constitution Article I Section 8Constitutional DamagesPrivate Actor LiabilityNLRA PreemptionAgricultural WorkersJudicial Self-ExecutionAppellate ReversalCivil Rights ClaimRetail Solicitation

References

Showing 1-4 of 4 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

United Farm Workers National Union v. Sloan's Supermarkets, Inc.

trademark infringementunfair competitionpreliminary injunctionconsumer boycottUFWAztec Eaglegood faithirreparable injuryjudicial discretionlabor dispute

Eliserio v. Floydada Housing Authority

Migrant WorkersAgricultural HousingFair Housing ActAWPAMotion to DismissStandingStatutory InterpretationPublic CorporationsEmployment RelationshipHousing Standards

Waldbaum, Inc. v. United Farm Workers

Product BoycottSecondary BoycottPicketingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefFirst AmendmentFree SpeechUnfair Labor PracticeUnion ActivityCalifornia Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA)

Albertson's, Inc. v. Ortiz