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

Johnson v. Delphi Energy & Engine Management Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff Mortess Johnson, an African-American woman, sued her employer, DELPHI ENERGY and ENGINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., for racial discrimination. She alleged lower wages, lack of promotion, lower classifications, inadequate equipment and training, and being approached about retirement, unlike non-African-American employees, over her thirty-year tenure ending in 1997. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing her claims were time-barred and that she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as her statistical evidence alone was insufficient and she did not apply for promotions. The court granted the defendant's motion, finding plaintiff's claims regarding a continuing violation were conclusory and her reliance on statistics alone, without proof of applying for promotions, failed to overcome the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her lack of advancement.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentStatistical EvidenceFailure to Promote
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sperry Systems Management Division v. Engineers Union, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers

This case concerns a labor dispute between Sperry Systems Management Division and the Engineers Union regarding subcontracting. Sperry sought to enjoin arbitration, while the Union counterclaimed to compel it, both filing motions for summary judgment. The central issue was whether a grievance, challenging the presence of subcontractor employees in Sperry's plant, was arbitrable under a collective bargaining agreement's clause explicitly excluding subcontracting decisions. The court, led by Judge Bauman, determined that the issue of arbitrability was for judicial determination, not the arbitrator. Finding the exclusionary clause clear and unambiguous, the court granted Sperry's motion, thereby enjoining the arbitration and denying the Union's counterclaim.

Labor DisputeArbitration EnjoinedCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontracting ClauseSummary JudgmentArbitrabilityContract InterpretationGrievance ProcedureLabor Management Relations ActExclusionary Clause
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rochester Independent Workers & General Dynamics/Electronics Division

This case involves a motion by the Rochester Independent Workers, Local No. 1 (Union) to compel arbitration against General Dynamics/Electronics Division (Company). The grievance concerned a reduction in force, lay-offs, and the transfer of work out of the bargaining unit. The Union claimed violations of the Recognition and Management Rights articles of their collective bargaining agreement. The Company argued that its right to subcontract and assign work was an exclusive management prerogative explicitly excluded from arbitration by the agreement. The court, referencing Federal precedents, determined that the agreement's language clearly excluded such matters from arbitration and, therefore, denied the Union's motion to compel arbitration.

arbitrationlabor disputecollective bargaining agreementsubcontractingmanagement rightsgrievance procedurelay-offunionfederal court decisionscontract interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fabijanic v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

Petitioner Nicholas Fabijanic, representing the Engineers Union, sought to compel Sperry Gyroscope Division and Sperry Systems Management Division to arbitrate a grievance concerning a collective bargaining agreement. The dispute arose after Systems' employees, previously working at the Mississippi Test Facility (MTF) on the National Data Buoy Project, were offered employment with Sperry Space Support, another division, which would result in loss of union coverage. The Union contended the agreement should still apply. The court denied the motion, ruling that the employees had voluntarily accepted employment with an autonomous entity not party to the agreement, thus making the grievance non-arbitrable under the existing contract.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceUnion RepresentationEmployee TransferSperry Rand CorporationNational Labor Relations BoardFederal CourtLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04811 [208 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2022

Murphy v. 80 Pine, LLC

Daniel Murphy, an employee of Empire Office, Inc., sustained a knee injury after tripping over an electrical conduit ('stub up') at a worksite owned by 80 Pine, LLC, and managed by Rudin Management Co., Inc. He and his spouse filed a consolidated action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) against the owners, general contractor Structure Tone, Inc., and various electrical contractors including United States Information Systems, Inc. (Systems), USIS Electric, Inc. (Electric), and Bigman Brothers, Inc. (Bigman). The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Kings County, largely denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, granting summary judgment to Systems on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and certain Labor Law § 241(6) claims, and dismissing Bigman's cross-claims against Systems. It also granted summary judgment to Electric for the Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.30, and to the owners and Structure Tone for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. However, it affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Electric regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and for the owners and Structure Tone regarding specific Labor Law § 241(6) claims. The court also affirmed the denial of Electric's motion to dismiss Systems' cross-claim for contractual indemnification and the denial of the owners' and Structure Tone's motion for contractual indemnification against Bigman.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityCommon-Law NegligenceHazardous ConditionElectrical ConduitWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewIndemnification
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campaniello v. Board of Managers

This case involves a dispute between Thomas Campaniello, owner of two commercial condominium units, and the Board of Managers of the 225 East 57th Street Condominium. The dispute centers on the responsibility for repairing duct work connected to an auxiliary water tower serving only Campaniello's unit B, which the condominium disconnected. Campaniello filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, trespass, and partial eviction, claiming the condominium was responsible for repairs. The condominium moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Campaniello was responsible for the maintenance of elements serving only his unit and that his claims lacked legal basis. The court granted the condominium's motion, dismissing all causes of action, including claims for punitive damages, finding Campaniello responsible for the unit's air-conditioning system maintenance.

Condominium LawProperty DisputeBreach of ContractTrespassPartial EvictionMotion to DismissBuilding Code ComplianceUnit Owner ResponsibilityCommon ElementsDeclarations and Bylaws
References
6
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 33753 [U]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2010

Bennett v. Health Management Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff Kenneth Bennett sued Health Management Systems, Inc. (HMS) for age and race discrimination under state and city human rights laws following his termination. Bennett, a 47-year-old Caucasian, alleged he was unfairly criticized and terminated due to age and race after transferring to a new team. HMS contended that Bennett was fired for poor job performance, including consuming alcohol at work. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to HMS, finding no factual support for discrimination. The appellate court affirmed, detailing the legal standards for summary judgment in City HRL discrimination cases and concluding that HMS presented unrebutted evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination, with no evidence of pretext from the plaintiff.

Discrimination LawAge DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionEmployment DisputesHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofPretext EvidenceMcDonnell Douglas Framework
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

This is a purported class action brought by Kelley Cunningham and Tam-mye Cunningham against Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime wages. EDS moved for summary judgment, asserting the "Air Carrier Exemption" to the FLSA, arguing plaintiffs worked under the direction of American Airlines. The court denied this motion, stating that the "control prong" of the National Mediation Board test focuses on the relationship between the air carrier and the employer (EDS), not just the individual employees, and found genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, the court granted EDS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding FLSA's record-keeping requirements, as there is no private right of action for employees to enforce these provisions. Defendant may renew the motion for summary judgment with further evidence.

FLSA ExemptionsAir Carrier ExemptionRailway Labor Act CoverageOvertime Pay DisputeClass Action LawsuitSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityNMB Control-Function TestTelecommunications Industry
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cutrone v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Plaintiffs Brian Cutrone and Jessica Cervone filed a putative class action against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), alleging violations of New York General Business Law and breaches of implied warranties related to mortgage recording taxes. The core dispute stemmed from the inapplicability of certain tax-saving refinancing agreements (CEMAs) for E-Sign mortgages following a New York court ruling, which allegedly forced plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated individuals to pay a second mortgage tax. MERS removed the case to federal court, citing both federal question and Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) diversity jurisdiction. The District Court, however, found no valid federal question jurisdiction as plaintiffs' claims were state-law based, with any federal issue being a mere defense, and ruled that MERS's removal under CAFA was untimely, as the company had sufficient information from the initial complaint to ascertain removability. Consequently, the motion to remand was granted due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, returning the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County.

Class ActionRemandFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionCAFAFederal QuestionMortgage Electronic Registration SystemsE-Sign MortgageNew York General Business LawMortgage Recording Tax
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 4,133 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