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
Mar 06, 2015

American Civil Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera

The American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) sued Zavala County Tax Assessor-Collector Cindy Martinez-Rivera for violating the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by allegedly failing to maintain accurate voter rolls, indicated by a 105% registration rate. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss challenging ACRU's standing and the sufficiency of the claim, while Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Magistrate Judge Collis White recommended denying both motions, finding ACRU had organizational standing and stated a plausible claim. District Judge Alia Moses adopted the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, consequently denying both the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint.

Voter RegistrationNational Voter Registration ActOrganizational StandingMotion to DismissMotion to Amend ComplaintVoter Rolls MaintenanceZavala CountyTexas Election LawSubject Matter JurisdictionConstitutional Standing
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 1956

Sandsberry v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACH.

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
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laborers International Union of North America v. Clark Material Handling, Inc.

Special Term erred in concluding an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement was invalid because it gave the union the unilateral right to arbitrate at its option. This decision contrasts with Federal labor law principles where a union's exclusive right to invoke arbitration does not invalidate the agreement. The court also clarified that the union reserving the right to strike alongside arbitration does not render the agreement invalid. However, a factual question arose concerning the validity of the collective bargaining agreement itself, specifically whether the employees who signed it on the employer's behalf had the authority to bind the company. Therefore, the matter was remitted for a hearing to determine the agreement's validity.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ProvisionMutuality of ObligationFederal Labor LawUnion RightsEmployer AuthorityContract ValidityRemittiturAppellate ReviewLabor Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. State

Mary Myers, a Seventh Day Adventist, was terminated from her employment by the Transit Authority for her refusal to work on Saturdays due to religious observance. Despite the Transit Authority's attempts to accommodate her, the Transport Workers Union's collective bargaining agreement, which prioritized seniority for work assignments and days off, prevented such accommodation without waiving other employees' seniority rights. The Commissioner of Human Rights found Ms. Myers' religious convictions sincere. However, the court, citing precedent regarding union seniority systems, annulled the administrative determination that had supported Ms. Myers. Justice Rubin, in a concurring opinion, criticized the legal framework that exempts union seniority systems from civil rights statutes, arguing for a joint employer and union obligation to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs, especially for quasi-public entities.

Religious discriminationSeniority systemCollective bargaining agreementReasonable accommodationSabbath observanceFreedom of religionFirst AmendmentCivil Rights ActExecutive LawEmployment termination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Pennzoil Co.

In this worker's compensation insurance case, National Union, an insurance carrier for Four Flags Drilling Company, intervened in an underlying negligence suit filed by injured employee David Pfeifer against Pennzoil and other third parties. National Union sought to assert its subrogation rights for worker's compensation benefits paid. Pennzoil moved to strike the intervention, arguing National Union had waived its subrogation rights via a Certificate of Insurance. The trial court granted Pennzoil's motion to strike and sever. On appeal, National Union contended the trial court erred procedurally and evidentiarily in striking its intervention. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the waiver of subrogation clause in the certificate unambiguous and enforceable against Pennzoil. The court, however, could not definitively rule on National Union's claims against other defendants due to an insufficient record regarding their status in the underlying suit.

worker's compensationsubrogation rightsinterventionwaiverinsurance lawcivil procedureappellate reviewTexas lawmotion to strikeseverance
References
9
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wallace v. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots

The plaintiff, a licensed deck officer, was denied membership in the defendant union in December 1978 after applying in April 1976. He filed a second amended complaint alleging eight causes of action, primarily asserting wrongful denial of union admission, due process violations, and unfair job referrals under federal labor, civil rights laws, and state constitutions. The court partially granted the defendant's Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff's claims based on membership or a right to membership were not cognizable as he was never accepted into the union. However, the court denied the dismissal motion regarding the plaintiff's claim of breach of fair representation, acknowledging that the union owed him this duty as an applicant. All other claims, including a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and a civil rights claim related to a derogatory epithet, were dismissed for failure to state a claim or lack of applicable rights.

Motion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)Subject Matter JurisdictionFailure to State a ClaimUnion MembershipLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCivil Rights ClaimConspiracyDue Process
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 1992

Kirrane v. Transport Workers Union of America

Plaintiff William Kirrane, a former staff representative and International vice-president of the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), brought claims against TWU and Local 101. He sought reinstatement to his former union positions and a declaration of good standing membership in Local 101 to run for president, alleging violations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act and the Labor-Management Relations Act. The court heard cross-motions for summary judgment from both parties. The judge granted the defendants' motions, dismissing Kirrane's claims for reinstatement against TWU, citing legal precedents regarding union officers' dismissal and free speech rights. The court also dismissed Kirrane's claim against Local 101, determining that the issue of his membership eligibility was more appropriately handled in a separate, ongoing action filed by the Secretary of Labor where Kirrane had already intervened.

Union DisputeLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLabor Management Relations ActSummary JudgmentUnion MembershipOfficer DismissalUnion ElectionsFree SpeechInternal Union PoliticsJudicial Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blair v. Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union of America

This case involves an action brought by members of Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union to enjoin a ratification vote on a collective bargaining agreement and to direct its resubmission to the executive board. The dispute arose from a 22-22 tie vote by the executive board on a fact-finding panel's proposals to end an 11-day work stoppage, after which the president declared the strike terminated and the offer submitted for general membership ratification. Plaintiffs contended the president's actions violated union by-laws, particularly regarding the need for executive board approval and the president's voting conduct. The court found that the absent executive board member's absence was his own doing and that the by-laws do not preclude the chair's right to vote. The court also determined that the executive board's tie vote, coupled with the illegal nature of the strike under the Taylor Law, did not constitute a violation of by-laws preventing a membership vote. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant union, dismissing the complaint.

Union disputeCollective bargaining agreementRatification voteExecutive boardTie voteUnion by-lawsStrike terminationTaylor LawInternal remediesPresident's authority
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 8,492 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