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

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
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

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. ADJ7484646
Regular
Apr 26, 2012

CHRISTINE SPIGNER vs. NEC ELECTRONICS, MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Christine Spigner's Petition for Reconsideration in the case against NEC Electronics and Mitsui Sumitomo Marine Management. The dismissal was based on the petition's failure to be verified, a violation of Labor Code section 5902. This procedural defect rendered the petition invalid. The Board's decision was consistent with established precedent regarding unverified petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902DismissalWCJ ReportWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ7484646SpignerNEC ElectronicsMitsui Sumitomo Marine Management
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1993

Olsen v. We'll Manage, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal by We'll Manage, Inc. from an order denying its cross motion for summary judgment in an action brought by plaintiff Gary Olsen under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. We'll Manage, Inc. contended that Olsen was its special employee, providing evidence of direct supervision, work assignments, the right to fire him, and payment signed by its personnel, despite his wages being drawn from a general employer's account. The court found this established a special employment relationship. As Olsen received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer, he is statutorily barred from maintaining an action against the special employer. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted We'll Manage, Inc.'s cross motion, and dismissed the complaint against the appellant.

Special EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarSummary JudgmentLabor LawDirect SupervisionControlAffidavitDeposition TestimonyGeneral EmployerAppellate Reversal
References
6
Case No. ADJ8094646
Regular
Jan 17, 2014

ALEJANDRINA BARRETO vs. OUT OF THE SHELL, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, PHARMAFINANCE, LLC, HEALTHCARE FINANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC

This case involves lien claimants PharmaFinance and Healthcare Finance Management, and their representatives Landmark Medical Management and Brian Hall, who sought reconsideration of a decision disallowing their liens for medical treatment. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to notice its intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against the lien claimants and their representatives. This action is due to a pattern of allegedly filing petitions containing false statements about not receiving notices, which violates the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure and Labor Code Section 5813. The Board found these claims not persuasive and indicative of a tactic to avoid responsibility.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsLien ClaimantsHearing RepresentativesIndustrial InjuryFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseNotice of IntentionLabor Code section 5813
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Natale v. Central Parking Systems of New York, Inc.

The case involves trustees of Health and Pension Funds (Plaintiffs) suing Central Parking System of New York, Inc. and Sonya Mitchell (Defendants) under ERISA for alleged unpaid contributions for certain employees. The Plaintiffs claimed an audit revealed unpaid contributions, arguing that fourteen disputed employees (managers, assistant managers, and supervisors) were covered by Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs). The Defendants moved for partial summary judgment, contending these employees were supervisory, had 'Status Authority,' and were thus excluded from the CBAs. The Court granted the Defendant's motion, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that contributions were owed for the disputed employees, as their evidence (audit report, deposition testimony, and previous contributions) was insufficient to prove these employees lacked Status Authority or were covered by the CBAs.

ERISAEmployee ContributionsCollective Bargaining AgreementsSummary JudgmentSupervisory EmployeesFiduciary DutyPayroll AuditUnpaid ContributionsLabor LawRule 56
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 18,690 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