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

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2000

Gallagher v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Michael Gallagher, a member of IBEW Local 43, sued the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), its President J.J. Barry, IBEW Local 43, and several electrical contractors, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation. He claimed violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Executive Law § 296. The International defendants (IBEW and J.J. Barry) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name them in his administrative charges with the EEOC and NYSDHR, and that the claims were time-barred. The court granted the motion, finding that the "identity of interest" exception did not apply, thereby barring the ADEA claim against the International defendants. Additionally, the court ruled that Gallagher's state law claims were also time-barred due to failure to file within the statutory limits against the International defendants.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionsCollective BargainingHiring HallEEOCNYSDHRStatute of LimitationsJudgment on the PleadingsIdentity of Interest
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2002

Goad v. Southern Electric International, Inc.

This case involves cross appeals from an order concerning Dennis Goad, a pipefitter injured in a fall at a steam cogeneration facility operated by Southern Electric International, Inc. Goad and his wife sued SEI and the facility owners, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). An earlier appeal dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Supreme Court partially granted defendants' motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding the statute inapplicable to routine maintenance work. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that replacing a main steam valve constituted maintenance, not construction, excavation, or demolition. However, the appellate court found that triable issues of fact existed regarding defendants' negligence under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, specifically concerning a prior improper weld on a hand railing that collapsed, thus denying defendants' motion to dismiss these remaining claims.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFall from HeightSummary JudgmentLabor Law §200Labor Law §241(6)Common-law NegligenceRoutine MaintenanceAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2008

Auchampaugh v. Syracuse University

This appeal concerns General Electric International, Inc.'s (GE) motion for summary judgment on a contractual indemnification claim against International Chimney Corporation, the employer of an injured worker. The underlying personal injury action, based on Labor Law violations, was previously dismissed entirely. The core issue was whether International Chimney had entered into a written agreement to indemnify GE, a requirement under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. GE presented an unsigned purchase order and standard terms, including an indemnification clause, but International Chimney raised questions of fact regarding the agreement's formation and acceptance, citing a project manager's affidavit, a GE representative's testimony, and non-compliance with document requirements. The Supreme Court denied GE's motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine dispute of material fact, and the appellate court affirmed this decision.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentThird-Party ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Written ContractQuestions of FactEmployer LiabilityLabor LawAppellate ReviewPurchase Order
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02362 [193 AD3d 545]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2021

International Franchise Assn. v. City of New York

The International Franchise Association appealed a Supreme Court decision that dismissed their complaint challenging the New York City Fair Workweek Law (FWWL). The appellants argued that the FWWL conflicts with various State Labor Law provisions regarding minimum wages, employee scheduling, and record-keeping. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding no conflict. The court reasoned that the FWWL's provisions, particularly those concerning scheduling premiums, serve to minimize unfair scheduling practices and have only a tangential, incidental effect on wages, thus not being preempted by state law. The court also found that the State Labor Law does not fully preempt the field of employee scheduling, and the FWWL's record-keeping requirements are supplementary, not contradictory.

Fair Workweek LawFWWLLabor Lawpreemptionminimum wageemployee schedulingrecord-keepinglocal lawstate lawAppellate Division
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Da Silva v. Kinsho International Corp.

Plaintiff Celia Da Silva sued her former employer Kinsho International Corporation and its Treasurer Haruo Maruyama, alleging racial and national origin discrimination under Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law (HRL), and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) following her termination. The central issue was whether Kinsho Int’l, potentially with its parent company Kinsho Mataichi Corp., qualified as an "employer" under Title VII's fifteen-employee requirement. Following a hearing, the court determined that Kinsho Int’l and Kinsho Mataichi did not constitute a "single employer," leading to the dismissal of Da Silva's Title VII claims. The court then exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. A jury subsequently returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Defendants, and the court clarified that the employee count under Title VII is a merits-based, not jurisdictional, question.

DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment LawSingle Employer DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionMerits-Based DismissalSupplemental JurisdictionNew York State Human Rights LawNational Origin DiscriminationRacial Discrimination
References
20
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02766 [160 AD3d 921]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2018

Clarke v. First Student, Inc.

Ibia M. Clarke, an employee of First Student Management, LLC (FSM), sustained personal injuries due to a defective condition at FSM's premises. She subsequently filed a negligence action against First Student, Inc., the premises owner. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing it was an alter ego of FSM, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied the defendant's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant successfully demonstrated, prima facie, that it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, FSM. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint was granted.

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyAlter Ego DoctrineEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewCorporate Structure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thai Airways International Ltd. v. United Aviation Leasing B.V.

Plaintiff Thai Airways International, Ltd. sued defendants United Aviation Leasing B.V. and others under the civil provisions of RICO and state law, alleging unlawful conversion of security deposits and wire fraud. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. After plaintiff filed an amended complaint, defendants moved again for dismissal. The court found that while the wire fraud claim was particularized, the conversion claim against other unnamed lessees failed to meet pleading requirements. Furthermore, the eligible predicate acts were deemed insufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement for a viable RICO claim. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted, and the complaint was dismissed without leave to replead, as the court lacked federal jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

RICO ActWire FraudCivil ProcedureRule 9(b)RacketeeringContinuity RequirementConversion of FundsSecurity DepositsAirplane LeaseJurisdiction Dismissal
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gotham Logistics, Inc. v. Local 917 International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Plaintiffs, Gotham Logistics, Inc., Bestway Services, Inc., and Bestway Logistics Transportation, Inc., trucking companies, initiated an action against Defendant Local 917 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its Secretary-Treasurer under the Labor Management Relations Act, alleging an unfair labor practice and tortious interference with contract. The dispute arose after the Union negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement with SWS, an employer of the plaintiffs' services, leading SWS to hire more in-house unionized employees and consequently reducing its need for plaintiffs' external trucking services. Plaintiffs argued this constituted an unlawful secondary boycott. The court, presided over by District Judge Wexler, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the Union's actions to be lawful primary activity directed at SWS concerning its own employees, rather than an unlawful secondary boycott aimed at the plaintiffs. As the federal claim was dismissed, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing the entire action.

Labor Management Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary BoycottPrimary ActivityCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) FRCPTortious Interference with ContractJurisdictionTrucking Services
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 15,309 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