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

Franklin v. CROSBY TYPE. CO. & INT'L TYPO. UNION

Plaintiff Morris W. Franklin, a Black individual, sued his former employer, Crosby Typesetting Company, Inc., and his union, International Typographical Union, Local 198, alleging racial discrimination. Franklin claimed he was denied experience credit, unlawfully discharged, and that the union failed to represent him due to his race. The employer asserted Franklin was discharged for cause due to disruptive behavior, specifically slamming type, after repeated warnings. The union contended it couldn't help due to Franklin's untimely grievance. The Court found the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case of discrimination, concluding his discharge was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and that the union did not discriminate or breach its duty of fair representation. Recovery was denied to the plaintiff.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Union Duty of Fair RepresentationWrongful TerminationPrima Facie CaseBurden of ProofStatute of LimitationsUntimely Grievance
References
6
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. 01 Civ. 2835
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Eastchester Union Free School District

Oswald Johnson, a 69-year-old cleaner, sued the Eastchester Union Free School District for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after his job location and hours were changed. The school district moved for summary judgment, arguing Johnson failed to establish an adverse employment action or an inference of discrimination. The court found that mere inconvenience from a lateral transfer and shift change, without a reduction in wages or altered job responsibilities, does not constitute a materially adverse employment action. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence did not support an inference of age discrimination, as other employees of varying ages also experienced job assignment changes, and the decision-maker was also over 40. The court also found the mandatory physical examination, which revealed Johnson's cataracts, was job-related and consistent with business necessity. Therefore, Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the court granted summary judgment to the Eastchester Union Free School District, dismissing the complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionDisparate TreatmentADEALateral TransferShift ChangePhysical ExaminationPrima Facie Case
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carter v. Transp. Workers Union of Am. Local 556

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

Fields v. Teamsters Local Union No. 988

Maria E. Fields sued Teamsters Local Union 988 and Terry Lovan for gender discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment under the TCHRA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Fields alleged Lovan, her trustee/supervisor, sexually harassed her over three months, using his authority to coerce her, and she was subsequently fired after complaining. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment for the Union on the sexual harassment claim, noting the Union did not meet the TCHRA's employer definition. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for the Union on the retaliation claim and for both the Union and Lovan on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, finding sufficient evidence for these claims to proceed to trial.

Gender DiscriminationRetaliationSexual HarassmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTCHRANo-Evidence Summary JudgmentLabor Union LiabilityEmployer Authority AbuseWorkplace HarassmentEmotional Distress Severity
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frank v. Lawrence Union Free School District

Michael D. Frank, a former junior high school mathematics teacher, sued the Lawrence Union Free School District and related entities for discrimination and retaliation after being denied tenure and subsequently fired. Frank alleged discrimination based on perceived disability (morbid obesity) under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NYSHRL, and also claimed retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The court denied the defendants' summary judgment motion on Frank's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims concerning being "regarded as" disabled, and on his NYSHRL claims for both disability discrimination and "regarded as" disabled. Additionally, retaliation claims related to a harsh performance review survived. However, Frank's claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodation were dismissed as he never requested any.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)Summary Judgment MotionPerceived DisabilityObesity DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTenure Denial
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, Local Union No. 782 v. Texas Employment Commission

This case concerns an appeal by the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local Union No. 782, AFI-CIO, and 99 individuals challenging a Texas Employment Commission (TEC) decision that denied unemployment compensation benefits. The dispute arose from a General Electric Company plant shutdown in 1957. The appellate court addressed jurisdictional issues related to the aggregate claims amount and venue for non-resident claimants. It affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the union as a party plaintiff, but reversed decisions regarding claimants deemed voluntarily unemployed or not totally unemployed who did not receive immediate vacation pay. The court affirmed the denial of benefits for 11 claimants who received vacation pay prior to the shutdown.

Unemployment CompensationJurisdictionVenueClass Action SuitVoluntary UnemploymentTotal UnemploymentVacation PayCollective Bargaining AgreementStatutory InterpretationJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Musto v. Transport Workers Union of America

Plaintiffs, former Title II Utility Men for American Airlines, represented by TWU and Local 501, alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act. They claimed the unions breached their duty of fair representation by deliberately eliminating their jobs during negotiations in 2002, leading to layoffs, and by failing to pursue their grievances. Plaintiffs also asserted American improperly laid them off, breaching collective bargaining agreements and Letters of Understanding. The court denied the unions' motions to dismiss the fair representation claims, finding sufficient evidence of bad faith and discrimination. However, plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages against the unions were dismissed. American's motion to dismiss, arguing minor disputes and lack of collusion, was also denied, as the court found a valid hybrid claim for breach of the CBA inextricably linked to the union's fair representation breach.

Railway Labor ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementLayoffsSeniority RightsContract NegotiationGrievance ProcedureStatute of LimitationsPunitive DamagesHybrid Actions
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernard v. Local 100, Transport Workers Union

The plaintiffs, Carlyle Bernard and John Simino, members of Local 100, Transport Workers Union of America, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their union from barring Bernard's candidacy for Recording Secretary. Bernard was disqualified due to a union bylaw requiring minimum meeting attendance, which he could not meet due to his work schedule. The plaintiffs argued that this rule was an unreasonable restriction on candidate eligibility under Title I of the LMRDA, thereby denying members equal rights to nominate and vote. The Court denied the preliminary injunction, stating that the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits. The decision highlighted that Title I primarily addresses direct discrimination in voting rights, not challenges to uniformly applied eligibility requirements, which are typically governed by Title IV's post-election enforcement by the Secretary of Labor. The Court also suggested the plaintiffs exhaust internal union remedies.

Union ElectionsLMRDA Title ILMRDA Title IVCandidate EligibilityMeeting Attendance RulesPreliminary InjunctionEqual RightsUnion BylawsInternal Union RemediesJudicial Review
References
22
Case No. NUMBER 13-10-00241-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2012

Jesus R. Salinas v. David Pankratz and Union Carbide Corporation

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
Showing 1-10 of 4,302 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