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

Duane Reads Inc. v. Local 338 Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union

Duane Reade Inc. sued Local 338 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and its officers for defamation following a heated labor dispute. The union had published allegedly libelous statements on a website, press releases, and flyers concerning Duane Reade's business practices and treatment of workers. Duane Reade contended that the union as a whole should be held accountable or, alternatively, that the officers acted outside their official capacities. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, citing the long-standing New York rule from Martin v Curran, which requires unanimous member ratification for suits against unincorporated unions. Furthermore, the court determined that the cause of action was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because the union's communications were related to a protected labor dispute and did not meet the malice standard required to overcome preemption, also noting the republication privilege.

DefamationLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityNational Labor Relations ActNLRA PreemptionMartin v CurranFreedom of SpeechLibelImplied AgencyNew York Law
References
12
Case No. CIV-81-518, CIV-81-548
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Local 435 of the Retail Store Employees Union & Heinrich Motors, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order by District Judge Elfvin addresses two arbitration awards involving Local 435 of the Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, and Heinrich Motors, Inc. The unions sought to confirm the awards, while Heinrich sought to vacate or modify them. The specific issue before the court was Heinrich's removal of CIV-81-518 from New York state court to federal court. Judge Elfvin concluded that the motion to confirm the arbitrator's supplemental award was part of the original action commenced by Heinrich to vacate the initial award, and was thus untimely removed. Consequently, Local 435's motion to remand CIV-81-518 to state court was granted, and Heinrich's motion to consolidate CIV-81-518 and CIV-81-548 was denied.

Arbitration AwardLabor Management Relations ActRemoval JurisdictionTimeliness of RemovalCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Court JurisdictionState Court JurisdictionMotion to RemandMotion to ConsolidateNew York Civil Practice Law and Rules
References
13
Case No. 2003 NY Slip Op 23942
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2003

Duane Reade, Inc. v. Local 338 Retail, Wholesale Dept. Store Union, UFCW, AFL-CIO

This case arises from a labor dispute between Duane Reade, Inc. (plaintiff) and Local 338 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (defendants). Duane Reade sued the union for trespass, tortious interference, fraud, and defamation, seeking $1.4 million in damages. The union moved to dismiss, arguing failure to plead membership authorization for tortious acts and NLRA preemption of state claims. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the dismissal, finding that Duane Reade did not meet pleading requirements under Martin v Curran and that the state law claims were preempted by the NLRA, as the NLRB was already investigating related unfair labor practices. The court also denied Duane Reade's cross-motion to amend its complaint.

Labor LawUnion DisputeNLRA PreemptionTrespassTortious InterferenceFraudDefamationMotion to DismissCollective BargainingUnfair Labor Practices
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

Duane Reade, Inc. v. LOCAL 338, RETAIL, WHOLESALE, DEPT. STORE UNION, UCFW, AFL-CIO

Plaintiff Duane Reade, a large drug store chain, sought a preliminary injunction against Defendant Local 338, a union, to prevent trespassing and solicitation of its employees regarding a union affiliation election. The action, initially filed in New York state court for common law trespass, was removed to federal court by Local 338, which argued for preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Presiding Judge Kaplan considered whether the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of 'complete preemption.' The court concluded that Duane Reade's state law claim fell under 'simple preemption' rather than 'complete preemption,' meaning federal question jurisdiction was not established. Consequently, the district court ruled that the case was improperly removed and ordered it remanded to the New York Supreme Court, County of New York.

Preliminary InjunctionTrespassUnion Affiliation ElectionLabor Management Relations ActLMRA PreemptionComplete PreemptionSimple PreemptionFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionRemand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Planning Board

Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval in the Town of North Elba for a retail store. Respondent, the Planning Board, denied the application, citing adverse visual impact, effects on community character, and non-compliance with the Town Land Use Code after a SEQRA review and public hearing. Wal-Mart challenged this denial as arbitrary, capricious, and lacking substantial evidence, also alleging Open Meetings Law violations. The Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division retained jurisdiction, applying a rationality standard, and ultimately confirmed the Planning Board's determination, dismissing Wal-Mart's petition.

Conditional Use PermitSite Plan ApprovalState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning BoardJudicial ReviewRationality StandardAesthetic ImpactCommunity CharacterTown Land Use CodeOpen Meetings Law
References
18
Case No. 15-cv-4357 (PAC)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cory Chavis, an Asset Protection Manager at a Walmart in Suffern, New York, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Chavis sought a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays due to her Sabbath observance. While initially requiring her to use vacation days, Walmart later granted her accommodation. Chavis subsequently claimed a hostile work environment and discriminatory denial of seventeen promotions. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims of failure to accommodate and hostile work environment, as well as most promotion claims. However, it denied summary judgment on Chavis's retaliation claim and promotion claims for specific MAPM and ASM positions, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSabbath AccommodationWalmartEmployment LawNew York Law
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff Tina Richey filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C., alleging she was terminated for refusing to participate in an illegal scheme to defraud vendors. Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, contending there was insufficient evidence for Richey's Sabine Pilot claim, which requires proving she was discharged solely for refusing to commit a criminal act. The court denied Wal-Mart's motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Richey was indeed discharged, if her refusal was the sole reason, and if there was actual malice to support punitive damages. Additionally, the court ruled that Richey's prior EEOC charge, mentioning sexual harassment, did not serve as a judicial admission to bar her Sabine Pilot claim. Consequently, the case will proceed to trial, as sufficient evidence exists for a jury to decide the claims.

Wrongful DischargeSabine Pilot ExceptionEmployment At Will DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionFraud AllegationsPunitive DamagesJudicial AdmissionsEEOC ChargePretext for TerminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeu v. Retail Clerk's Union, Local 455

Mary Lynne Jeu, a pharmacist, sued Retail Clerk’s Union, Local 455 AFI^CIO, Van Blades, and Retail Clerk’s International Association for slander. The alleged slander occurred when Van Blades, a union employee, accused Jeu of being "paid off" by her employer to speak against unionization during a meeting. A jury initially found in favor of Jeu, awarding damages for medical treatment, injury to character, and punitive damages. However, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, requiring "actual malice" as defined by federal labor law precedents, a stricter standard than the jury's finding of malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that recovery for slander under the trial court's original definition of malice could not be sustained given the requirement of "actual malice" in the context of labor disputes.

SlanderDefamationLabor RelationsUnion ActivitiesActual MaliceReckless DisregardJury Verdict OverturnedJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil Appeals
References
6
Case No. 10-CV-5255 (ERK)(LB)
Regular Panel Decision

Rosario v. Valentine Avenue Discount Store, Co.

Plaintiff Julian Rosario filed a collective action lawsuit against multiple discount stores and Raymond Srour, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff sought conditional certification of the collective action, production of potential opt-in plaintiffs' information, and authorization to circulate a notice of pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, granted the plaintiff's motion. The decision was based on a 'modest factual showing' that employees across several stores were subject to a common policy of wage and hour violations, despite initial concerns about the scope of the class and the definition of similarly situated employees. The court outlined specific modifications for the notice of pendency, including defining the class as 'non-managerial employees who performed work related to the receipt, stocking, or sale of merchandise, or general maintenance/cleaning of the store,' and also addressed the content and dissemination of the notice, and the production of employee information.

FLSANew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum WageCollective ActionConditional CertificationEmployee RightsEmployer LiabilityRetail Industry
References
26
Case No. 08-15-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2016

in Re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.P., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC

Blanca Calderon filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, alleging wrongful termination due to age discrimination or a worker's compensation claim. Following discovery disputes, the trial court, presided over by Judge Luis Aguilar, granted Calderon's motion to compel and denied Wal-Mart's motion for a protective order. Subsequently, Wal-Mart was found in contempt for non-compliance with discovery orders and assessed significant fines and attorney's fees. Wal-Mart petitioned for a writ of mandamus, challenging the contempt findings on grounds of inadequate notice and arguing that the discovery orders were overbroad. The Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief, vacating the contempt orders due to insufficient notice and ordering the return of paid fines, but affirmed the trial court's discovery order and sanctions related to attorney's fees.

MandamusContempt OrderDiscovery AbuseProtective Order DenialMonetary SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionInadequate NoticeCriminal ContemptProcedural Due ProcessTexas Court of Appeals
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 626 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