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

Sanderson v. Bellevue Maternity Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiff, an at-will employee, was removed from her position at Bellevue Maternity Hospital by her supervisor, Susan Fraley, following a co-worker's allegation of harassment. Plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against the co-worker for defamation and tortious interference, and against Bellevue and Fraley for defamation and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court dismissed the defamation claim against Bellevue and Fraley, citing qualified privilege, and the wrongful discharge claim against Bellevue, upholding the principle of at-will employment. This appeal affirms the dismissal of the defamation claim against Bellevue and Fraley, concluding that Fraley's statements were protected by qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual malice. The court also noted the abandonment of the wrongful discharge claim on appeal.

DefamationAt-Will EmploymentQualified PrivilegeActual MaliceRespondeat SuperiorWrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHarassment AllegationEmployee Relations
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1976

Loos v. New York Telephone Co.

The plaintiff, a 25-year repairman for New York Telephone Company and a union member, was discharged after a 10-day suspension due to alleged misconduct. Following a three-step grievance procedure, the union declined to pursue arbitration on his behalf. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant for wrongful discharge. At the trial stage, the complaint was dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case regarding the union's alleged wrongful refusal to arbitrate. On appeal, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted, with the appellate court referencing *Vaca v Sipes*. The court determined that sufficient evidence existed to make out a prima facie case, asserting that the factual question of the union's conduct should have been presented to a jury.

Wrongful DischargeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureArbitrationFair Representation DutyPrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewNew TrialSuffolk County
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cusumano v. Schlessinger

The plaintiff, an operator employed by Rodin, was discharged on October 2, 1914, after agents of the International Garment Association informed Rodin that the plaintiff was not a union member, violating an agreement between Rodin's association and the defendant. The plaintiff, claiming wrongful discharge and subsequent inability to find work, was awarded $500 in the lower court. However, the defendant appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Rodin had the right to discharge an employee hired for an indefinite term with or without cause. The court also determined that the defendant's truthful statements did not constitute an actionable offense, as the responsibility for discharge rested solely with the employer. Furthermore, no evidence suggested the defendant prevented the plaintiff from seeking other employment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Wrongful dischargeLabor disputeUnion membershipEmployer-employee relationsTrade associationsContractual agreementsAppellate reviewDismissal with costsUnemploymentRight to discharge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chatelain v. Mount Sinai Hospital

Plaintiff, discharged from Mount Sinai Hospital for misconduct, was denied unemployment benefits by the New York State Department of Labor. Though the administrative decision was upheld on appeal, plaintiff did not pursue state court review but instead filed a federal action alleging wrongful discharge and breach of duty of fair representation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting collateral estoppel based on the administrative ruling. The District Court denied defendant's motion and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to strike the collateral estoppel defense, holding that administrative agency decisions not reviewed by a state court, especially those from potentially unfair hearings, should not be given preclusive effect in federal court actions under the Labor Management Relations Act.

Wrongful DischargeCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataUnemployment BenefitsAdministrative LawFederal Court JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActDue ProcessSummary JudgmentGrievance Procedures
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between City of Lackawanna & AFSCME, AFL-CIO Local Union No. 1205

This case addresses the determination of compensation due to four City of Lackawanna employees—Levulis, Dombrowski, Plaza, and Michalek—who were wrongfully discharged. An arbitrator initially ordered their reinstatement with full compensation, which the Supreme Court confirmed after the City's attempt to vacate the award was denied and subsequent appeals were dismissed due to lack of prosecution. Despite court orders, the City delayed reinstatement and compensation, leading to a judgment for back pay and a contempt order. The central issue before the court is how to calculate the back pay, specifically concerning deductions for earnings from other employment held concurrently with municipal employment prior to discharge, and claims for vacation, personal leave, and birthday pay. The court ruled that earnings from pre-existing second jobs are not deductible from back pay and that vacation, personal leave, and birthday pay are not due over and above full pay reimbursement, holding the City responsible for the extensive delays.

Wrongful DischargeBack Pay CalculationCivil Service LawDeductions from WagesDual EmploymentArbitration Award EnforcementContempt of CourtPublic Employee RightsReinstatementErie County Supreme Court
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1994

Austin v. Local 1-2

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 17, 1994. The defendants sought to disqualify the plaintiff's attorney, Stuart Bochner, in an action for breach of contract and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court denied the disqualification motion, and that decision was affirmed on appeal. The court held that Bochner's representation of a separate entity related to the defendant union, on unrelated matters, did not create an adverse effect on his professional judgment. Furthermore, his previous role as general counsel for the union ten years prior was not substantially related to his current representation of the plaintiff, thus not warranting disqualification.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestProfessional EthicsBreach of ContractWrongful DischargePrior RepresentationLegal EthicsAppellate ReviewSupreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vail-Ballou Press, Inc. v. Tomasky

Plaintiff discharged defendant for using abusive language, assaulting a co-worker, and insubordination. Following his discharge, defendant picketed, sent electronic mail to plaintiff's contacts, and created an internet website, detailing his version of events and accusing plaintiff of illegal conduct. Plaintiff secured an order of protection and commenced an action seeking a permanent injunction based on defamation, malicious injury, and wrongful interference. Defendant counterclaimed for wrongful termination, retaliatory discharge under Labor Law § 740, and malicious prosecution. The Supreme Court dismissed only the wrongful termination claim, leading to plaintiff's appeal, which resulted in the dismissal of all defendant's counterclaims.

Retaliatory DischargeMalicious ProsecutionDefamationInsubordinationTrespassingSummary JudgmentCounterclaimsAppellate ReviewPublic Health and SafetyWrongful Termination
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. ITT STANDARD

Paul Smith, Jr., a former employee of ITT Standard, filed a complaint alleging wrongful discharge against ITT and a violation of the duty of fair representation against his union, United Steel Workers of America Local No. 897, AFL-CIO. Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court granted the Union's motion regarding the bad faith claim but denied it concerning the arbitrary conduct claim. ITT's motion for summary judgment regarding the wrongful discharge claim was also denied, meaning that triable issues of fact remain for trial concerning the arbitrary nature of the union's representation and ITT's alleged improper discharge. The case hinges on whether Smith's conduct constituted insubordination under shop rules and if the 'last chance agreement' precluded arbitration.

Workers' RightsWrongful DischargeDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementInsubordinationLast Chance AgreementShop RulesLabor LawFederal Court
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ross v. Arcata Graphics Co.

Ross filed an action alleging age, gender, and national origin discrimination, breach of contract, and wrongful discharge against her employer, Areata. She later withdrew her gender, breach of contract, and wrongful discharge claims. Areata moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to Areata on the national origin discrimination claim, finding the evidence of a single ambiguous remark insufficient. The court also granted summary judgment to Areata on the claim for punitive damages, stating they are not available under Exec.L. § 297. However, the court denied summary judgment on Ross's ADEA and Exec.L. § 296 age discrimination claims, ruling that Ross did not voluntarily waive her ADEA rights and that a reasonable jury could find she was discharged due to age, thus requiring a trial on the merits of those claims.

Age DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary Judgment MotionADEA ClaimExecutive Law § 296Reduction-in-ForceDiscriminatory IntentWaiver of RightsPrima Facie Case
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peacock v. Suffolk Bus Corp.

Plaintiff Michael Peacock, a bus driver, filed an amended complaint against Suffolk Bus Corporation (SBC), Richard Spevak, Rose Bedell, and Transportation Workers Union Local 252. Peacock alleged civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, violation of 49 U.S.C. § 31105 (Surface Transportation Assistance Act), and wrongful discharge, after being suspended and subsequently discharged from employment following several incidents and safety violation reports. The Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that whistleblowers are not a protected class under § 1985, the STAA does not provide a private right of action, and New York does not recognize a claim for wrongful discharge. Additionally, a new claim of breach of the Union's duty of fair representation, raised in opposition, was deemed time-barred due to the six-month statute of limitations. The Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice, as the Court found further amendment would be futile.

Motion to DismissCivil ConspiracyWhistleblower ProtectionWrongful Discharge ClaimSTAA EnforcementLMRA PreemptionDuty of Fair RepresentationPleading StandardsFailure to State a ClaimStatute of Limitations
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 1,312 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