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

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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Decker v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including the United Transportation Union and Local 377, initiated an action in state court against CSX Transport, Inc. (CSXT), alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act's status quo provisions related to CSXT's planned sale of a rail line. CSXT moved for dismissal, contending that the plaintiffs' notice was barred by a national agreement moratorium, Local 377 lacked standing, the carrier held a unilateral right to sell lines, and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) preempted RLA Section 6. Conversely, plaintiffs asserted that the National Mediation Board had docketed their dispute as major, the sale was a tactic to circumvent RLA provisions, and the moratorium did not apply to them due to local bargaining representation. The court, drawing parallels with Railway Labor Executives’ Association v. Staten Island Railroad Corp., determined that the ICC's authorization of the sale brought the matter under its exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court found itself unable to provide a remedy without interfering with the ICC's order and granted CSXT's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Railway Labor ActStatus Quo ProvisionsMotion to DismissRail Line SaleInterstate Commerce CommissionPreemptionCollective BargainingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefJurisdiction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schreiber v. K-Sea Transportation Corp.

Nicholas Schreiber, a seaman employed by K-Sea Transportation, sustained injuries. After receiving maintenance and medical expenses, he agreed to K-Sea's arbitration program for further claims in exchange for advance wages. Following a deterioration of his condition and additional surgeries, Schreiber sued K-Sea under the Jones Act. K-Sea initiated arbitration, but Schreiber sought to stay it due to the substantial filing fees and his claim of being unaware of his rights. The Supreme Court granted a permanent stay, deeming the agreement unconscionable and a waiver of jury trial rights. This appellate court reversed, finding the agreement was not a release and the financial burden was speculative. The case was remanded to the Supreme Court for a hearing to determine if Schreiber's waiver of Jones Act rights and agreement to arbitrate was freely and knowingly entered into, considering his status as a ward of admiralty.

Jones ActArbitration AgreementSeaman InjuriesPersonal Injury ClaimWaiver of RightsFederal Arbitration ActEmployment ContractsAppellate ReviewRemand for HearingMaritime Law
References
21
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01785
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2017

Henvill v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Winston Henvill appealed the dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his petition to vacate an arbitration award, which resulted in the termination of his employment. The Supreme Court had granted defendants' motion to dismiss Henvill's complaint and denied his petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award based on a finding of misconduct. Henvill argued that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Benevolent Association (PBA) breached its duty of fair representation and that the arbitrator's fact-finding was irrational. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding no evidence that the PBA's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Furthermore, the court emphasized that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited to statutory grounds and does not permit reviewing the arbitrator's findings of fact.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationArbitration AwardEmployment TerminationMisconductCPLR Article 75Vacatur of Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationLabor Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Hare v. General Marine Transport Corp.

In this opinion, the District Court denied General Marine Transport Corporation's motion to amend a prior judgment that awarded damages to the Trustees of the New York Marine Towing and Transportation Industry Pension Fund and Insurance Fund. General Marine sought to amend the judgment based on the recent Supreme Court ruling in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, arguing for the application of a six-month limitations period. The court determined that DelCostello specifically applies to "hybrid 301/fair representation" claims and does not necessitate a departure from the previously applied six-year New York state statute of limitations for breach of contract actions, citing Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp. Therefore, the motion was denied, reaffirming the earlier decision.

Motion to Amend JudgmentStatute of LimitationsLabor LawBreach of ContractFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations ActHybrid 301/Fair Representation ClaimsPension FundInsurance Fund
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. v. Transport Workers of America, Local 100

Plaintiffs Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. and Surface Transit, Inc. sued Transport Workers of America, Local 100, Transport Workers of America, and Michael J. Quill for damages alleging a breach of collective bargaining agreements following a 1962 strike. The Union defendants moved for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the arbitration clauses of their agreements. Defendant Michael J. Quill moved to dismiss the action against him, contending that Section 301(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act does not permit actions against individual union officers. The court found the arbitration clauses sufficiently broad to cover the strike issue and granted the stay of proceedings. Additionally, the court granted Quill's motion to dismiss, citing Supreme Court precedent that such actions are against the union, not its president.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementStrikeTaft-Hartley ActMotion to StayMotion to DismissUnion LiabilityIndividual LiabilityNo-Strike ClauseGrievance Procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Public Interest Research Group Straphangers Campaign, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) faced a significant budget deficit and implemented fare/toll increases and token booth closures. Public interest groups challenged these decisions, alleging that the MTA's public hearing notices were misleading and incomplete regarding financial details and alternative solutions. Lower courts initially sided with the petitioners, vacating the MTA's actions. However, on appeal, the court reversed these rulings, asserting that the MTA's notices complied with statutory requirements and were neither false nor misleading. The court emphasized the legislative role in setting disclosure standards and affirmed the MTA's authority, especially concerning the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority's toll-fixing powers. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the MTA's original decisions.

Public TransportationFare IncreaseToll IncreaseBudget DeficitPublic HearingsStatutory ComplianceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPublic Authorities LawCPLR Article 78
References
13
Case No. 11 Civ. 8655(RWS)
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Plaintiff Ada Perez, a police officer for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), filed an amended complaint against the MTA and two officers, D’Agostino and Olshanetskiy, alleging violations of her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights related to compulsory urine tests during her employment. Perez, on restricted duty after an injury and not carrying a firearm, argued she was not in a safety-sensitive position and therefore not subject to random drug testing per an MTA agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing municipal claims against the MTA due to lack of a valid § 1983 claim but allowing the unreasonable search and seizure claims to proceed based on new factual allegations regarding the MTA-Police Benevolent Association Memorandum of Agreement. The court dismissed the due process claims, finding no deprivation of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest.

Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentUnreasonable Search and SeizureDue ProcessMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Municipal LiabilityMonell ClaimDrug Testing
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Village of Westbury v. Department of Transportation

The Village of Westbury initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the Department of Transportation (DOT) for alleged violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Village sought to annul a negative declaration issued by DOT for the reconstruction of an interchange and a proposed widening of the Northern State Parkway, arguing that the projects' cumulative environmental effects required an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, annulling the negative declaration and remitting the case to DOT. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that DOT erred by not considering the combined environmental effects of the interchange reconstruction and the parkway widening, as these were interdependent projects under SEQRA regulations. The Court also held that DOT must apply the more protective Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) regulations and that the Village's proceeding was timely because DOT failed to provide proper notice of the negative declaration.

Environmental LawSEQRACPLR Article 78Negative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementProject SegmentationCumulative ImpactsNotice RequirementsStatute of LimitationsHighway Construction
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 832 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