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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 17, initiated an action to compel arbitration against Swank Associated Company, Inc., following a labor grievance. Swank removed the case to federal court and filed a third-party action against Local 210, arguing the matter constituted a jurisdictional dispute not subject to arbitration. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Schroeder, examined the collective bargaining agreement to determine the arbitrability of the dispute. It concluded that while an arbitrator could determine if the issue was a jurisdictional dispute, they could not resolve it on the merits if it was found to be jurisdictional. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the grievance was directed to arbitration solely to ascertain whether it constituted a jurisdictional dispute under the agreement.

Labor LawArbitration AgreementJurisdictional DisputesCollective BargainingLabor Management Relations ActFederal CourtPleadings MotionContract InterpretationArbitrabilityUnion Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Plaintiff Ak-ousa Agyeman, an elementary school teacher, filed a civil rights action against the Roosevelt Union Free School District and several individuals, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Civil Service Law § 75-b. Agyeman claimed she was retaliated against for engaging in protected speech, specifically through internal emails and a letter to the New York State Education Department, regarding student needs, District policies, and alleged legal violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing her speech was not constitutionally protected. The Court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that Agyeman's speech was made as a public employee performing official duties, not as a private citizen, and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, the Section 1983 claim was dismissed, and the remaining state law claim was dismissed without prejudice for re-filing in state court.

First Amendment retaliationPublic employee speechCivil rights actionSummary judgmentNew York State law claimDismissal without prejudiceTeacher employment disputeSchool district liabilityFreedom of speechOfficial duties
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case addresses a dispute between union members and their labor organizations concerning a dues increase implemented during a trusteeship. Plaintiffs challenged the unilateral dues increase by a trustee under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the union's constitution. The court found that the trustee's action violated the LMRDA's provision requiring member participation in dues decisions, even under a trusteeship. However, the claim based on the union constitution was dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the LMRDA claim and to the defendants on the union constitution claim, leaving the issue of damages unresolved.

LMRDAUnion DuesTrusteeshipLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentExhaustion of RemediesUnion ConstitutionVoting RightsDemocratic GovernanceLabor Unions
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Plaintiff Charlene Carter, a former flight attendant, sued Southwest Airlines and her union, Local 556, alleging wrongful termination and retaliation. She claims Southwest terminated her for RLA-protected speech and religious discrimination under Title VII after she posted pro-life content and criticized union leadership on Facebook. Carter also alleges Local 556 retaliated against her and breached its duty of fair representation by complaining to Southwest about her posts. The Court denied Southwest's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding her claims were not minor disputes under the RLA. However, the Court dismissed Carter's RLA claims against Southwest for failing to establish anti-union animus and constitutional retaliation claims against both defendants because they are private entities. The Title VII religious discrimination claim against Southwest was allowed to proceed, and the breach of duty of fair representation claim against Local 556 was dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend. The RLA-based retaliation claim against Local 556 was also allowed to proceed.

Railway Labor ActTitle VII DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationWrongful TerminationRetaliation ClaimDuty of Fair RepresentationSocial Media PolicyUnion ActivitiesFreedom of SpeechPrivate Employer
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO ("Local 17") filed a grievance against Union Concrete and Construction Corporation ("UCC") to compel arbitration regarding UCC's emergency snow removal work for Erie County in November 2014, alleging violations of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). UCC argued the work was not covered by the CBA's "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" definition, rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation to grant UCC's motion for summary judgment and deny Local 17's. United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara conducted a de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings in their entirety, concluding that the emergency snow removal work did not constitute "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" under the CBA. Consequently, Local 17’s motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was denied, and UCC’s motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the closure of the case.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilitySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmergency Snow RemovalHeavy ConstructionHighway ConstructionScope of Arbitration ClauseDe Novo Review
References
26
Case No. NUMBER 13-10-00241-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2012

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Appellant Jesus R. Salinas appealed a trial court's order granting summary judgment to David Pankratz and Union Carbide Corporation in a work-related negligence action. Salinas suffered burns at a Union Carbide plant while employed by a subcontractor, GSI, which had a contract with Union Carbide for workers' compensation insurance through Dow Chemical. The trial court also dismissed Salinas's constitutional claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Union Carbide was a statutory employer under the Texas Labor Code's exclusive remedy defense. Furthermore, the court determined that a lack of notice regarding insurance coverage constituted an administrative violation rather than discrimination, and Salinas's constitutional claims were not viable in this civil case without a federal actor.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive Remedy DefenseStatutory EmployerNegligence ActionConstitutional ClaimsFifth AmendmentEighth AmendmentTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Plaintiffs, Local 323 and its officers, initiated a lawsuit against the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers (IUE). They alleged that the IUE unlawfully denied Local 323's right to disaffiliate, claiming the IUE amended its constitution to obstruct disaffiliation and breached its own rules in denying their application. Plaintiffs sought judicial enforcement of disaffiliation, retention of assets, an injunction, and damages. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting various defenses, including the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union remedies. The court ultimately granted the defendant's motion, concluding that Local 323 had not exhausted its available administrative remedies within the union, a prerequisite for pursuing the claims in federal court, given the internal nature of the dispute.

Union DisaffiliationLabor LawLMRALMRDAExhaustion of Administrative RemediesInternal Union DisputeMotion to DismissBreach of ContractFederal Court JurisdictionUnion Constitution
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 1956

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The dissenting opinion by Justice Smith, joined by Justices Griffin and McCall, argues against compulsory union membership enforced by labor unions with the aid of the 1951 amendment to the Railway Labor Act. Justice Smith contends that such governmental action, by compelling individuals to join a union and take an oath of allegiance, violates constitutional liberties under the First and Fifth Amendments, specifically the right not to join a union. The dissent reviews various prior Supreme Court cases to establish that governmental action, even when assisting private parties like unions, necessitates review under the Bill of Rights. It criticizes the unions' refusal to consider alternatives to full union shop agreements and highlights that the "Hanson case" supports restraining unlawful assessments. The opinion concludes that the injunction granted by the trial court against compulsory union membership should be affirmed.

compulsory union membershipgovernmental actionRailway Labor Actright to work lawsFirst AmendmentFifth Amendmentunion shop agreementsfreedom of associationlabor unionsconstitutional liberty
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves an action to recover a death benefit for Joseph Niemyjski from the International Ladies Garment Workers' Union. Niemyjski was a member of a local union affiliated with the central International Union, which governed local unions and their members through by-laws. Originally, the union's constitution provided for death benefits, contingent on certain membership requirements and payment of special assessments. However, these provisions were repealed prior to Niemyjski's death. The court noted no evidence that Niemyjski paid death benefit assessments or complied with the claim submission requirements. The court emphasized that members are bound by the union's constitution and its amendments, especially since Niemyjski continued membership after the repeal. The judgment was reversed, and the complaint dismissed, finding that no death benefit provision existed at the time of death and no compliance with conditions precedent.

Death BenefitLabor UnionConstitutional AmendmentBy-lawsMembership RightsContract LawCondition PrecedentFraternal OrganizationBenefit FundWorkers' Rights
References
4
Case No. 89 CV 3290
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves three related actions where the plaintiff, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ('Carpenters'), seeks to recover assets from unnamed defendant local unions. The local unions had disaffiliated from the Tile, Marble, Terrazzo, Finishers, Shop-workers and Granite Cutters International Union ('Tile Workers'), which subsequently merged into the Carpenters. The Carpenters assert that the local unions were obligated to forfeit their assets upon disaffiliation according to the Tile Workers' constitution. The defendant local unions raised affirmative defenses, challenging the Carpenters' standing by disputing the validity of the merger due to an allegedly improperly adopted constitutional amendment and a failure to disclose 'imprudent' investments. The court ruled that the defendant local unions lacked standing to challenge the internal union merger process and consequently struck their affirmative defenses. The court also denied the Carpenters' motion to add the Tile Workers as a plaintiff.

Union DisaffiliationAsset RecoveryLabor Union MergerStanding DoctrineAffirmative DefenseLabor LawInternal Union AffairsFederal JurisdictionWorkers' RightsConstitutional Amendment Challenge
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 10,257 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