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

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co. v. Rubberized Novelty & Plastic Fabric Workers' Union, Local 98

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1994

Hess v. B & B Plastics Division of Metal Cladding, Inc.

Plaintiff Carolyn K. Hess sued her former employer B & B Plastics and her union (Local 686 and UAW) for sex discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged discriminatory firing by B & B Plastics and discriminatory refusal by the union to pursue her grievance. The union defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that Hess's claim against them constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation, which is preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Hess moved to remand the case to state court, arguing her claims were independent state law actions. The court, citing precedent, found that Hess's state law claims against the union were completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to remand those claims to state court was denied, and the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against the employer.

Sex discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301Federal preemptionDuty of fair representationMotion to remandFederal question jurisdictionWell-pleaded complaint ruleCollective bargaining agreement
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshel v. AFW Fabric Corp.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, alleging violations of federal securities laws related to a tender offer and merger aimed at returning Concord Fabrics, Inc. to private ownership. The court, referring to prior decisions and Supreme Court precedent like Santa Fe Indus., Inc. v. Green and Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, determined that the fraud allegations were not cognizable under federal securities laws (Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5, 13, and 14 of the Exchange Act). This was due to the absence of material misrepresentations or non-disclosures and the availability of state appraisal remedies. Consequently, the federal claims were deemed legally insufficient, leading the court to decline jurisdiction over any pendent state law claims. The defendants' motion to dismiss was therefore granted.

Federal Securities LawCorporate MergerTender OfferFraud AllegationsRule 10b-5Section 10(b) Securities Exchange ActState Appraisal RemedySubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissGoing Private Transaction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Philpott v. New York

Plaintiff Jeffery Philpott, a former Vice President at SUNY’s College of Optometry, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit alleging sexual orientation discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Initially, the State of New York and the University of the State of New York were named as defendants but were later dismissed, as was a claim under the ADA, leaving only State University of New York (SUNY) as a defendant. The court evaluated whether sexual orientation discrimination is cognizable under Title VII, finding that it is due to the evolving legal landscape and recent circuit court decisions. It concluded that plaintiff plausibly alleged his claims and that they were not time-barred. However, the court dismissed the Title IX claim, determining that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination in federally funded educational institutions. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIITitle IXMotion to DismissGender StereotypingStatute of LimitationsEmployment DiscriminationFederal Court
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2015

Doe v. Hagenbeck

Plaintiff Jane Doe, a former cadet, sued West Point officials and the U.S. for alleged sexual hostility and discrimination at the academy, which she claims forced her to resign. She alleged violations of her Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection rights, as well as breach of contract and Federal Tort Claims Act claims. The court, presided over by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. While dismissing Doe's due process, FTCA, and contract claims, and dismissing the U.S. from the case, the court allowed her equal protection claim against the individual defendants, Hagenbeck and Rapp, to proceed. The court reasoned that Doe sufficiently alleged rampant gender discrimination at West Point, which violated her constitutional right to equal protection, and that the Feres doctrine did not bar this specific claim.

Gender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentEqual ProtectionDue ProcessWest PointMilitary AcademyMotion to DismissBivens ClaimFederal Tort Claims ActLittle Tucker Act
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hargett v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

David T. Hargett sued the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), its executives (Stanley Grill, David Ross, May Mcintosh), the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), and its employees (Ken Neal, James Harding, Jr.) for wrongful discharge based on civil rights violations, age discrimination, New York State Human Rights Law, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and breach of contract. Hargett, an African American male, was terminated from NYCTA in June 2004 after a female subordinate accused him of sending inappropriate emails, an accusation she later recanted claiming she was pressured by NYCTA management. The court, presided by Judge McMahon, granted in part and denied in part the NYCTA Defendants' motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing IIED, defamation, and breach of contract claims as time-barred or lacking legal merit. The MTA Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims was granted, as the MTA was not considered Hargett's employer and individual liability requirements were not met. The NYCTA Defendants' motion to strike certain paragraphs from the complaint was denied.

Wrongful TerminationAge Discrimination in Employment ActCivil Rights ViolationRacial DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamation LawsuitBreach of Employment ContractMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsEmployment Discrimination
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2008

Siddiqi v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Khursheed Siddiqi, a medical technologist, sued New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation (HHC) alleging discrimination based on race, age, religion, and national origin. Claims included violations of federal and state laws for involuntary transfer, denial of promotion, refusal of religious holidays, negative performance evaluations, and a hostile work environment. The court granted HHC's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. Age discrimination and several time-barred federal claims were dismissed. The court allowed a claim for religious discrimination regarding unequal holiday leave and a hostile work environment claim to proceed, but dismissed retaliation claims for failure to promote and performance evaluations.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPerformance EvaluationsFailure to PromoteStatute of Limitations
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2001

Honey v. County of Rockland

Plaintiff Alice Honey, a Radio Operator for Rockland County, initiated an action against her employer for alleged retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The retaliation claims stemmed from a disability discrimination complaint Honey filed with the EEOC in April 1996, after which she claimed adverse employment actions, including prohibited shift swaps and harassment. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment. While several of Honey's claims of adverse employment action were dismissed, the court found a genuine issue of material fact concerning the prohibition of shift swaps, linking it to the EEOC complaint. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

ADA retaliationdisability discriminationemployment lawsummary judgmentadverse employment actionshift swapEEOC complaintcausal connectionprima facie caseRockland County
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Computerized Steel Fabricators, Inc.

The reorganized Chapter XI debtor, Computerized Steel Fabricators, Inc., initiated a motion to hold Pension Fund Iron Workers Local 455 in contempt. Computerized argued that its Chapter XI confirmation order discharged any potential withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), which the Pension Fund was attempting to collect post-confirmation. However, the court determined that Computerized's collective bargaining agreement was not rejected during bankruptcy and remained in effect, and thus the withdrawal liability arose in June 1982, post-confirmation, when Computerized ceased operations. The court held that this post-confirmation claim was not provable or dischargeable under the Bankruptcy Act and that the MPPAA's application was constitutional and not retroactive. Consequently, the application to hold the Pension Fund in contempt was denied.

BankruptcyChapter XIContemptMPPAAERISAWithdrawal LiabilityCollective Bargaining AgreementPost-confirmation ClaimsDischargeExecutory Contract
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,772 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