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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New York Times Co.

This case involves The New York Times Co. (Times) seeking a permanent injunction against the New York Newspaper Printing Pressmen’s Union No. 2 (Union) and to hold the Union in contempt of court. The dispute stems from a 1995 Consent Decree, part of an EEOC suit, aimed at increasing minority and female representation among Junior Pressmen. The Times alleged a work slowdown by the Union on August 19, 1998, in response to the Times notifying the EEOC of a proposed advancement of Juniors, an action the Times considered a good faith effort to comply with the Consent Decree. The Court found the work slowdown was deliberately caused by the Union and granted the permanent injunction, citing irreparable harm to the Times due to the perishable nature of its product and loss of goodwill. However, the Court denied the motion to hold the Union in contempt for an alleged September 1, 1998, slowdown, finding the evidence of non-compliance not clear and convincing and the connection to the Consent Decree too weak.

Labor DisputePermanent InjunctionWork SlowdownContempt of CourtConsent DecreeEEOC EnforcementTitle VIICollective BargainingNewspaper IndustryUnion Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carey v. General Electric Co.

The International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. (Union) moved for a preliminary injunction against an unnamed Company. The Union sought to compel the Company to continue processing grievances concerning penalties imposed on thirty-eight employees due to an alleged slowdown at its Louisville, Kentucky, plant. The Company had refused to continue these discussions as long as the slowdown and subsequent strike persisted. Judge Palmieri denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the Union failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, a prerequisite for injunctive relief. Furthermore, the court noted that granting such an injunction would prematurely provide the movant with a substantial portion of the relief sought in the final judgment, which is generally considered improvident.

injunctiongrievance processcollective bargaining agreementlabor disputepreliminary injunctionirreparable injuryslowdownstrikelabor relationsunion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Ruppert & Egelhofer

This case involves an appeal by the Brewery Workers Local Unions from a modification by the Appellate Division, First Department, which confirmed an arbitrator's award against them. The arbitrator had found the unions engaged in an illegal slowdown, violating their collective bargaining agreement, and issued an injunction to stop it. The unions challenged the arbitrator's authority to issue injunctive relief, citing Civil Practice Act § 876-a, and also raised procedural issues regarding conditions precedent to arbitration and sufficiency of proof. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, ruling that parties can voluntarily confer injunctive powers to arbitrators, thus harmonizing the policies of arbitration and the Civil Practice Act. The court also dismissed the unions' procedural arguments, finding no failure to comply with arbitration prerequisites and sufficient evidence of a slowdown.

ArbitrationInjunctionLabor DisputeCollective BargainingSlowdownUnionEmployerAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Case No. ADJ6994190
Regular
Nov 05, 2012

JUAN GAMBOA vs. HYDRO FITTING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that he did not prove his employer violated Labor Code section 132a. The applicant failed to demonstrate he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to his work-related injury. The employer presented evidence of a business slowdown and layoffs affecting both industrially and non-industrially injured employees. Therefore, the applicant did not meet his burden of proof regarding discriminatory treatment.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderworkers' compensation administrative law judgedisadvantageous treatmentbusiness necessityeconomic slowdowntemporary hirere-hireddisabled workers
References
5
Case No. ADJ7811358
Regular
Jan 22, 2016

PABLO ORTEGA vs. PRAVIN PATEL, TJ, LLC dba SANTA CRUZ BEACH INN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration of an award for unlawful discrimination. The employer argued the applicant was laid off due to business slowdown and failed to mitigate wages, but the Board upheld the finding of pretext and discrimination. The Board also confirmed that medical-legal expenses are considered employee compensation and are subject to the one-half increase for discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. Therefore, the employer is liable for the increased compensation including the PQME's medical-legal costs.

Labor Code 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical-legal expenseIncreased compensationBack-payPretextDiscriminationLayoff
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Thompson & S.L.T. Ready-Mix, Division of Torrington Industries, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Supreme Court order confirming an arbitration award. The petitioner, an employee laid off during a winter slowdown, filed a grievance after workers with lower seniority were recalled. An arbitrator found the employer, the respondent, violated the collective bargaining agreement's seniority provisions and ordered the petitioner to be made whole. The Supreme Court confirmed this award. On appeal, the court affirmed the arbitrability of the dispute due to the respondent's waiver and upheld the arbitrator's authority. However, the appellate court found the damages portion of the award lacked specificity and required a rehearing before the arbitrator for a final determination of the amount. The court also denied the petitioner's claim for counsel fees.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority Rights DisputeWaiver of ArbitrabilityArbitrator's AuthorityDamages AssessmentRemittal for ClarificationConfirmation of AwardVacation of AwardCounsel Fees Denied
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acosta v. Wollett

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding where public employees (petitioners) challenged a determination by the Director of Employee Relations that they engaged in an illegal strike. The employees refused to work at a temporary office location ("Ben's") citing unsafe and substandard conditions, including lack of heating, electrical hazards, and limited exits, and the absence of a certificate of occupancy. While they performed other clerical work, they refused to process unemployment claims at Ben's. The court found their refusal to work at the assigned location, despite their safety concerns, constituted a work stoppage or slowdown in violation of the Civil Service Law, affirming the initial determination and dismissing their petitions. A dissenting opinion argued that the employees' actions were driven by a genuine and reasonable fear for their safety due to the deplorable working conditions.

Public Sector Labor DisputeStrike ProhibitionEmployee Safety ConcernsSubstandard Workplace ConditionsCPLR Article 78 ReviewTaylor Law ViolationWork StoppageCertificate of OccupancyPublic Employee UnionsConcerted Activity
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas International Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n International

Texas International Airlines (T.I.) filed a complaint against the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), alleging an unlawful strike/work stoppage in violation of the Railway Labor Act and seeking injunctive relief and damages. The court issued several temporary restraining orders to prevent disruptive tactics like slowdowns and excessive equipment write-ups by ALPA members. ALPA counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought to vacate the restraining orders. The court granted T.I.'s application for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood that ALPA members were engaged in concerted action to disrupt operations. However, the court denied T.I.'s application to hold ALPA in contempt, citing insufficient clear and convincing evidence to establish union liability under the 'mass action' theory or for official encouragement or ratification of violations.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionContempt of CourtWork StoppageSlowdownAirline IndustryUnion LiabilityCollective BargainingFederal Court
References
26
Showing 1-8 of 8 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