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
Feb 09, 2004

Vogt v. Greenmarine Holding, LLC

This action was brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by former employees of Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC), a bankrupt company, against several investment companies that owned or controlled OMC's stock. Plaintiffs alleged failure to provide a sixty-day notice before mass layoffs or plant closings. Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court applied the Department of Labor's five-factor test for intercorporate WARN Act liability, particularly emphasizing de facto control over the mass layoff decision. The motions to dismiss were denied for Greenmarine Holdings, LLC, Quantum Industrial Partners, LDC, and Quantum Industrial Holdings, Ltd., due to sufficient allegations of de facto control, common ownership, and shared directors. However, the motions were granted for other defendants lacking such specific allegations.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingIntercorporate LiabilityParent CompanySubsidiaryIntegrated EnterpriseDepartment of Labor RegulationsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 1975

Sable v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

This case concerns an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 6, 1975, which denied a petitioner's application for a temporary injunction. The injunction sought to prevent the layoff of certain employees by the respondents. The layoffs were proposed due to economic factors and were conducted according to a collective bargaining agreement based on seniority. Employees over 40, through their union, alleged age discrimination, prompting the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights to seek the injunction. The court affirmed the denial, reasoning that legal remedies were not inadequate, and there was no apparent irreparable injury. The decision also noted the unlikelihood of a probable cause finding by the State Division of Human Rights, given the layoffs were pursuant to a seniority-based collective bargaining agreement.

Age DiscriminationLayoffsTemporary InjunctionSeniority RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementHuman Rights DivisionEconomic LayoffsIrreparable InjuryLegal RemediesAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halkias v. General Dynamics Corp.

The court considered the defendant, General Dynamics Corporation's, motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs, Dawn Dee Bryant, Barry Jackson, and others similarly situated. Plaintiffs sought recovery under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, alleging inadequate notice for a mass layoff in January and February 1991. The defendant argued the layoff was caused by business circumstances (cancellation of the A-12 program) that were not reasonably foreseeable, thus exempting them from the 60-day notice under 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(2)(A). The court found no genuine issue of material fact, concluding that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion was granted, and plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice, as the defendant provided as much notice as practicable under the circumstances.

WARN Actmass layoffsummary judgmentunforeseeable business circumstancesnotice requirementA-12 program cancellationemployee rightsFifth Circuitfederal courtclass action
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Greater Texas Finishing Corp.

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by former employees against Greater Texas Finishing Corporation and Sun Apparel, Inc., alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and breach of contract following layoffs in 1997. The plaintiffs claimed both companies were their employers and failed to provide timely notice under WARN, while one plaintiff also asserted a breach of contract for unpaid vacation. The Court granted the defendants' motion to strike certain portions of the plaintiffs' summary judgment evidence. It also granted summary judgment in favor of Sun Apparel, concluding it was not an employer under the WARN Act, and in favor of Greater Texas regarding the 'plant closing' claim and the individual breach of contract claim. However, the Court denied summary judgment for Greater Texas on the 'mass layoff' issue due to insufficient evidence regarding the proper notice date calculation, allowing the defendant to file a second motion.

Summary JudgmentWARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingEmployer DefinitionBreach of ContractClass ActionAffidavitsEvidentiary FactsSingle Site of Employment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado v. Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration

This case addresses whether a dismissed action, initially brought against a nonexistent entity with improper service, can be refiled against the intended defendant under CPLR 306-b (b). Plaintiff Maldonado was injured in 1992 and filed an action in 1995, naming "Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration" based on signage, and attempting service on a temporary worker. This first action was dismissed because the named entity did not exist and service was ineffective. Plaintiffs then filed a second action, correctly naming "Maryland Mass Transit Administration." The Supreme Court allowed the second action, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the first action was not timely commenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the resuscitative remedy of CPLR 306-b (b) is unavailable when the initial action failed to name an existing entity and lacked proper service, thus the first action was not "timely commenced" against the intended defendant.

Dismissed ActionNonexistent EntityImproper ServiceCPLR 306-b (b)Statute of LimitationsCommencement of ActionPersonal JurisdictionCure of DeficiencyAmendment of ComplaintAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burns Jackson v. Lindner

This case involves a class action lawsuit brought by professional and business entities in Manhattan against various unions and their officers, including the Transport Workers Union (TWU), Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), and George Link. The plaintiffs sought damages resulting from an 11-day mass transit strike in April 1980 in New York City. The complaint asserted causes of action based on prima facie tort, public nuisance, and third-party beneficiary breach of contract. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The court denied the motion to dismiss for the prima facie tort and public nuisance claims, concluding that illegal public employee strikes could give rise to private causes of action for damages. However, the motion to dismiss the third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim was granted, as the court found the collective bargaining agreement did not primarily intend to benefit the public to allow private enforcement for consequential damages.

Mass Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor DisputePrima Facie TortPublic NuisanceDamagesClass ActionMotion to DismissTaylor LawUnion Liability
References
44
Case No. ADJ7217859, ADJ7544106
Regular
Oct 21, 2014

YOLANDA MARTINEZ vs. MASS PRECISION, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, SCI @ BALANCE STAFFING SERVICE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves applicant Yolanda Martinez claiming industrial injuries (lumbar spine, right shoulder, psyche) from her employment at Mass Precision. Defendant Zurich North America, insurer for SCI @ Balance Staffing Service, contested liability for the psyche injury, arguing applicant's employment by SCI was less than the six-month statutory minimum. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of joint and several liability, holding that prior employment at the same worksite with dual employers counts towards the six-month requirement for psyche injury claims. This decision was based on the principle that the six-month rule aims to prevent claims from routine stress in new employment, a purpose not served when an employee has a longer-term relationship with the worksite.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma InjuryApportionmentPsychiatric InjuryLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Six Month Employment RequirementDual EmploymentGeneral EmployerSpecial Employer
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guippone v. Bh S & B Holdings LLC

The court addresses a class action lawsuit under the WARN Act, where terminated employees sued the purchaser of their former employer, Steve & Barry's, for not providing 60 days' notice before a mass layoff. Defendants argued employees were 'part-time' because they worked for the new owner for less than six months. The court rejected this, stating that employment periods with both seller and purchaser should be aggregated for WARN Act purposes. However, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice, citing the complaint's deficient pleading of facts and instructing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within twenty days.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingEmployment LossAsset PurchaseSuccessor LiabilityPart-Time EmployeesPleading StandardsMotion to DismissBankruptcy
References
15
Case No. 192-1049-352
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp. (In Re Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp.)

Howard P. Goodman, a former Chief Financial Officer for Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp., Inc., filed an adversary proceeding seeking severance pay and damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and to recover under his Proof of Claim No. 833. The Debtors-Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and expunge the claim. The court found that Goodman was terminated on September 27, 1991, which was more than 90 days prior to the mass layoffs at Mr. Goodbuys in January/February 1992. Therefore, Goodman did not qualify as an "affected employee" under WARN, and his pleadings failed to state a claim for relief. Consequently, the court granted the Debtors-Defendants' motion, dismissing Goodman's complaint with prejudice and expunging his Proof of Claim No. 833.

BankruptcyMotion to DismissWARN ActEmployment TerminationSeverance PayProof of ClaimAdversary ProceedingChapter 11Pro Se LitigantMass Layoff
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2013

Conn v. Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP (In re Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP)

This case involves Vittoria Conn, a former employee of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, who initiated a putative class action adversary proceeding. She alleged violations of the federal, New York, and California WARN Acts due to mass layoffs without proper advance notice. Dewey & LeBoeuf, the Debtor, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that these claims should be processed through the claims allowance system and that the 'liquidating fiduciary principle' exempted them from WARN Act obligations. The Court denied the Debtor's motion to dismiss, concluding that WARN Act claims, which seek equitable relief, are appropriately brought in an adversary proceeding. The Court postponed decisions on class certification and the administrative or priority status of the claims, noting these issues are to be resolved in the main bankruptcy case.

WARN ActNY WARN ActCAL WARN ActClass ActionAdversary ProceedingBankruptcyMotion to DismissEquitable ReliefLiquidating Fiduciary PrincipleEmployee Layoffs
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 203 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