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. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Marzovilla v. New York State Industrial Board of Appeals

Petitioners Nicola Marzovilla and Valodome, Inc., challenged a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) which found they violated Labor Law § 196-d by misappropriating employee tips at their New York City restaurant, iTrulli. The misappropriation occurred from 2001 to 2005 through the inclusion of senior employees, Gianni Linardic and Alex Steidl, in a mandatory tip pool, despite their ineligibility due to supervisory roles or non-service primary duties. The Department of Labor (DOL) initially assessed approximately $407,000 in owed wages, interest, and penalties, a finding largely upheld by the IBA. The Appellate Division confirmed the IBA's decision, concluding that Linardic exercised "meaningful authority" over other servers and Steidl's duties were not principally customer service, thus rendering both ineligible for tip sharing. Consequently, the determination of tip misappropriation was upheld, and the petitioners' CPLR article 78 petition was dismissed.

Tip PoolingWage MisappropriationLabor Law § 196-dIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewRestaurant IndustrySupervisory EmployeesTip EligibilityCPLR Article 78Judicial Review
References
6
Case No. 15 Civ. 7543 (NSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. sued Defendant CKH Industries, Inc. for non-payment of marketing fees. CKH counter-claimed, alleging violations of franchise laws, breach of agreements, unfair business practices, and fraud. Safe Step moved to dismiss CKH’s counter-claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It determined that the relationship between the parties could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule and various state laws, allowing certain counter-claims to proceed. However, claims under New York and Rhode Island's "Little FTC" Acts, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition were dismissed. The court also held that Tennessee law governs the contract disputes, while state franchise laws apply where Defendant's franchises are located. Additionally, the court found that oral modifications and part performance could sustain certain contract claims despite written-only modification clauses.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment
References
87
Case No. ADJ4219029
Regular
Jul 28, 2010

KENNETH MANES vs. TENNECO INC.; ACE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to apportion 2% of the applicant's permanent total disability to non-industrial factors, as determined by the agreed medical examiner (AME). However, the Board found the AME's apportionment opinion lacked substantial evidence, failing to explain the causal link between the applicant's non-industrial activities and his disability. The Board affirmed the original award of permanent total disability without apportionment, as the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof.

Permanent DisabilityApportionmentCausationAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial EvidenceIndustrial InjuryNon-Industrial FactorsCumulative TraumaLabor Code Section 4663SB 899
References
3
Case No. AD.J10107792
Regular
Oct 03, 2016

CANDICE ANDERSON vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that an applicant injured her back during a paid meal break while selling burritos on employer premises. The Board found this activity was within the course of employment under the "personal comfort" doctrine, distinguishing it from off-duty recreational activities. Defendant's due process and temporary disability contentions were rejected, as the employer remains liable for all temporary disability caused in part by an industrial injury, regardless of non-industrial conditions. Therefore, the original award of temporary disability benefits was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryCourse of EmploymentPaid Meal BreakVoluntary Off-Duty ActivityPersonal Comfort DoctrineLabor Code Section 3600Labor Code Section 3600(a)(9)Due Process
References
9
Case No. ADJ9994879
Regular
Mar 07, 2018

LEE HOLMES vs. FIRST GROUP OF AMERICA, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO.

The applicant, a bus driver, sought workers' compensation for injuries sustained during non-industrial eye treatment. The Board affirmed the trial judge's decision that the injury was not industrial because the employer did not require the applicant to undergo the specific medical treatment that led to the injury. The applicant's belief that maintaining vision was a condition of employment was insufficient to establish industrial causation. The Board distinguished this case from situations involving employer-directed medical treatment or off-duty recreational activities.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJQMEindustrial causationproximate causereasonable expectancy of employmentoff-duty recreational activityLatourette
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salomon v. Adderley Industries, Inc.

Plaintiffs Geordany J. Salomon, Donielle Lewis, Dwight Edghill, and Shanroy Powell sought to amend their complaint against Adderley Industries, Inc. to include American Communications Industries, Inc. and several individuals (Lawrence Presser, Joseph Misseri, Vincent Cestaro) as additional defendants. They also requested to add a new claim under New York Labor Law Section 195. Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York reviewed the motion, applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b). The court granted the motion to add the new corporate and individual defendants, finding that the plaintiffs were diligent in seeking the amendment after new information emerged during discovery and that the proposed claims of employer status were plausible under the FLSA and NYLL. However, the request to add the NYLL § 195 claim was denied because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient good cause for its late inclusion.

Amendment of PleadingsJoinder of PartiesEmployer LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ClaimsDiscoveryGood Cause StandardUndue DelayFutility of Amendment
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Findlay Industries, Inc.

The Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Findlay Industries Inc. for alleged unpaid contributions related to vacation and holiday pay, seeking back contributions, liquidated damages, and injunctive relief. Findlay Industries Inc. maintained that its collective bargaining agreements with four local unions only required contributions for 'hours worked,' not for vacation or holiday pay. The court found that Findlay had consistently contributed based on 'hours worked' since 1973, and the Fund had knowingly accepted this interpretation for many years. Despite previous audits and demands, the Fund's claims for additional contributions were rejected, and the court ruled that the collective bargaining agreements required contributions only for 'hours worked.' Consequently, all claims by the plaintiff Fund were dismissed on the merits.

Pension Fund DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementHours WorkedVacation PayHoliday PayERISALMRAContract InterpretationEmployer ContributionsTrust Fund
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Roberts

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law § 220 applies to private construction projects financed by industrial development agencies using tax-exempt bonds. The petitioners, Quo Vadis Editions, Inc. and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, challenged the Commissioner of Labor's determination that such projects constitute "public works." Special Term ruled against the Commissioner, prohibiting the application of the prevailing wage requirement. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, concluding that these projects are not "public works" because their fundamental purpose is private, with the private developer retaining economic ownership and benefits, despite the agency's formal title for financing mechanisms.

Prevailing WageIndustrial Development AgenciesTax-Exempt BondsPublic Works DoctrineLabor LawGovernmental FunctionPrivate DevelopmentDeclaratory ReliefStatutory InterpretationEconomic Development Incentives
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 7,131 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