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. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. 75-H-1459
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1976

Airline Flight Atten., Etc. v. Tex. Intern., Etc.

This case addresses a labor dispute between airline flight attendants and Texas International Airlines concerning the Airline's unilateral mid-month flight schedule changes. The core legal question revolves around whether these actions constituted a 'major' or 'minor' dispute under the Railway Labor Act, which dictates different resolution procedures. The Flight Attendants sought injunctive relief, arguing for a major dispute that would require the Airline to maintain the status quo and negotiate. However, the District Court found the Airline's justification, based on the existing collective bargaining agreement and managerial prerogative, to be reasonable and made in good faith. Consequently, the court ruled the dispute was 'minor,' falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Board of Adjustment for contract interpretation, and thus denied the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and granted summary judgment for the defendant.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeStatus Quo ObligationSystem Board of AdjustmentCollective Bargaining AgreementMid-month Schedule ChangesInjunctive ReliefSummary JudgmentContract Interpretation
References
20
Case No. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim
References
17
Case No. W2014-00032-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2014

Ricardo Torres v. Precision Industries, P.I., d/b/a Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick and Vicki Hedrick

Ricardo Torres, an undocumented worker, appealed the Hardeman County Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in his retaliatory discharge claim against Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick, and Vicki Hedrick. Torres alleged he was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim for a back injury sustained on the job. The trial court had ruled that an unauthorized alien lacked standing to bring such a claim as they were incapable of legal employment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that undocumented employees do have standing to pursue retaliatory discharge claims in Tennessee, as the Workers' Compensation Act broadly defines 'employee' to include those lawfully or unlawfully employed. The court reasoned that retaliatory discharge actions protect employees' rights to file workers' compensation claims and preventing such claims by unauthorized aliens would create an incentive for employers to hire illegal workers and deny them benefits without consequence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeUndocumented WorkerImmigration StatusSummary Judgment ReversalEmployee StandingEmployment LawTennessee Appellate CourtPublic Policy ExceptionEmployer Retaliation
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emhart Industries, Inc. v. Duracell International Inc.

This breach of contract case involves the sale of the Mallory Components Group by Duracell International Inc. to Emhart Industries, Inc. Several transferred facilities were contaminated with toxic substances (PCBs and TCE), leading to two consolidated lawsuits: Emhart v. Duracell and Dart, and Duracell v. Emhart. The trial was bifurcated into liability and damages phases. The Court ruled that Duracell and Dart are liable to Emhart for clean-up costs of the facilities and equipment, consequential damages arising from the necessary clean-up time, costs incurred in enforcing the contract, and a portion of third-party action costs. Additionally, Duracell was found liable to Emhart for CERCLA response costs. The Court also determined that Emhart's temporary plant shutdown was a reasonable response to perceived legal and health risks, but its subsequent decision to permanently close the plant and abandon equipment, while economically rational for Emhart, was outside the scope of Duracell's indemnity obligation.

Breach of ContractEnvironmental LawToxic SubstancesPCBsTCECorporate SaleIndemnity AgreementCERCLATSCAClean-up Costs
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Airline Flight Attendants in the Service of Texas International Airlines, Inc. v. Texas International Airlines, Inc.

This case addresses a labor dispute between Airline Flight Attendants, represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International, and Texas International Airlines, Inc. The Flight Attendants sought injunctive relief to stop the Airline's unilateral flight cancellations and rerouting, arguing these were violations of the Railway Labor Act. The central legal question was whether the dispute over mid-month schedule changes constituted a 'major' or 'minor' dispute under the R.L.A., which dictates different resolution procedures. The Court determined that the Airline's actions were arguably covered by existing collective bargaining agreements or fell under its managerial prerogative, thus classifying it as a minor dispute. Consequently, the District Court denied the Flight Attendants' request for an injunction and granted the Airline's motion for summary judgment, remanding the matter to the System Board of Adjustment.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementInjunctionSummary JudgmentFlight AttendantsAirline IndustrySchedule ChangesStatus Quo
References
15
Case No. Civ. A. No. TY-83-232-CA
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1985

BROTH. OF RY., AIRLINE, ETC. v. St. Louis SW Ry.

Petitioners, Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, and Steamship Clerks (BRAC), sought enforcement of Award No. 316 from Public Law Board 1186, which ordered St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company (SSW) to pay Charles Helloms, Jr. for a violation of their collective bargaining agreement. SSW cross-petitioned to set aside the award, arguing the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding penalty pay without express contractual authorization. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, found that the Board's decision drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and industry practice, citing prior Fifth Circuit rulings. The court rejected SSW's arguments, enforced Award No. 316 against SSW, and awarded BRAC attorney's fees and costs.

Railway Labor ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardPenalty PayUnion RightsContract ViolationEnforcement ActionSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesFifth Circuit Law
References
9
Case No. 16-CA-12241
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 1985

Dunn v. Pilgrim Industries, Inc.

The Regional Director of Region Sixteen of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Michael Dunn, filed a verified petition for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against Pilgrim Industries, Inc. The petition alleged that Pilgrim Industries engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain with the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 540, following its acquisition of Pluss-Tex Poultry Company, and by unilaterally implementing changes to employee benefits and work shifts. The court found reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices had occurred. However, it declined to issue a mandatory bargaining order, citing insufficient evidence of irreparable harm to the Union that could not be remedied by a final Board order. The court instead granted a prohibitory injunction, restraining Pilgrim Industries from actions intended to erode employee support or membership in the Union and from unlawfully dissipating Union strength, while explicitly allowing the previously instituted pay increase, pension plan, and second work shift to remain. The ultimate resolution of successor employer status and bargaining duty was deferred to the NLRB.

National Labor Relations ActSection 10(j) InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeSuccessor EmployerDuty to BargainUnilateral ChangesCollective BargainingLabor DisputeTemporary InjunctionProhibitory Injunction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bandas Industries, Inc. v. Employers Fire Insurance Co.

Employers Fire Insurance Company, the appellee, sued Bandas Industries, Inc., the appellant, in Bell County district court to recover $36,354.00 in retrospective premiums on two insurance policies (worker’s compensation and comprehensive general liability). The policies, effective from June 1975 to June 1976, included a retrospective premium endorsement allowing for adjustment based on loss experience. Bandas Industries, Inc. argued the retrospective premium provision was unconscionable and counterclaimed for $100,000.00 due to policy cancellation. The district court ruled in favor of Employers Fire Insurance Company, finding the contract conscionable and denying the counterclaim. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, overruling Bandas Industries, Inc.'s points of error regarding unconscionability, parol evidence, policy cancellability, and the existence of a safety program.

Workers' compensationRetrospective premiumInsurance contractUnconscionabilityContract cancellationParol evidenceFindings of factConclusions of lawAppellate reviewJudgment affirmed
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc.

The plaintiff, a black female airport operations agent for American Airlines, sought damages and injunctive relief against the airline's grooming policy which prohibited all-braided hairstyles, specifically 'corn rows'. She alleged discrimination based on race and sex, violating the Thirteenth Amendment, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, arguing the style held cultural significance for Black women. The court dismissed claims under the Thirteenth Amendment and the facial challenges to the policy, determining that braided hairstyles are not immutable characteristics and the policy applied equally to all. It also denied class certification. However, the plaintiff's claim of discriminatory *application* of the grooming policy was allowed to proceed, and individual defendants Crandall and Zurlo were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationGrooming PolicyRacial DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981Thirteenth AmendmentBraided HairstyleCorn RowsClass Action Denial
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 4,689 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