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

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Civil Service Employees Association (C.S.E.A.) filed an Article 78 application to challenge actions taken by the City of White Plains and the Public Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.). C.S.E.A. sought to vacate a resolution where the City recognized a different employee organization (S.I.W.A.) for a portion of its employees, thereby altering C.S.E.A.'s bargaining unit, and to annul a P.E.R.B. order upholding the City's action. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing improper venue and that it was not a proper party. The court determined that Albany County was the correct venue and that the City was a proper party. The central issue was whether the City could unilaterally change bargaining unit composition without C.S.E.A.'s consent or a decertification petition. The court ultimately denied C.S.E.A.'s requested relief, agreeing with P.E.R.B. that public employers can recognize different employee organizations once an incumbent's unchallenged representation status period expires, in accordance with Civil Service Law sections 204 and 208.

Public Employment RelationsCollective Bargaining UnitsEmployee Organization RecognitionTaylor LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 CPLRBargaining Unit AlterationDecertification ProceedingsPublic Employer RightsVenue Disputes
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Westchester v. Arfmann

The case concerns public employees of the Westchester County Department of Public Welfare who engaged in a strike starting March 1, 1967, resulting in a motion for a temporary injunction by the County of Westchester. The employees, including the Westchester Welfare Workers Association, picketed county offices due to reported issues like case overloads and poor working conditions. While defendants claimed illness and presented testimony from a psychiatrist regarding 'adult situational stress reactions,' the court found that the mass absence constituted a strike interfering with welfare services. The court ruled that Section 807 of the Labor Law, which forbids injunctions in labor disputes, does not apply to public employees. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction.

Public Sector StrikeTemporary InjunctionLabor DisputeCivil Service LawEmployee ProtestWestchester CountyWelfare DepartmentIllegal StrikePicket LinesGovernment Employees
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LIN Television Corp. v. National Ass'n of Broadcast Employees & Technicians—Communications Workers

Plaintiff LIN Television Corporation sought to vacate a labor arbitration award that reinstated employee Timothy Flynn after his termination for making threats. Defendants, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—Communications Workers of America, counter-claimed to enforce the award. The arbitration found no "just cause" for termination, converting it to a suspension and mandating a positive psychiatric evaluation for Flynn's return. The U.S. District Court, reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, confirmed the arbitration award. The court ruled that the award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and did not violate public policy regarding workplace safety, thereby denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendants' motion.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardVacaturEnforcementWorkplace SafetyCollective Bargaining AgreementJust CauseEmployee TerminationMental Health EvaluationFederal Court Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bivins v. Helsby

This case involves an appeal by the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) against a decision by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to divide a single bargaining unit of Sullivan County employees into three separate units. CSEA had previously been the sole bargaining agent. The fragmentation into units for Department of Public Works (DPW) employees, supervisory DPW employees, and all other county employees followed petitions from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). CSEA challenged both PERB's jurisdiction due to an untimely filing of exceptions by AFSCME and the merits of the unit fragmentation. The court affirmed PERB's decision, holding that the procedural rule deviation caused no prejudice and that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence, aligning with the "community of interest" standard under Civil Service Law § 207.

Collective BargainingBargaining UnitPublic EmployeesLabor RelationsAdministrative LawPERBCivil Service LawUnit FragmentationCommunity of InterestDecertification
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kent v. Lefkowitz

This dissenting opinion addresses an improper practice charge filed by the Public Employees Federation (PEF) against the New York State Racing and Wagering Board (the Board). The core disagreement lies in whether the Board satisfied its obligation to negotiate wages for seasonal employees. The dissent argues that the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) correctly found the Board fulfilled its duty through a comprehensive October 1995 side letter agreement. This agreement, titled "MEMORANDUM OF INTERPRETATION," covered various compensation and employment benefits for seasonal personnel from 1995 to 1999. The dissenting judge believes PERB's interpretation of this agreement, indicating a full accord on wage-setting discretion, was rational and should have led to the affirmation of the Supreme Court's dismissal of the CPLR article 78 petition. However, the majority decision reversed the judgment, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter to PERB for further proceedings.

Collective BargainingSeasonal EmployeesWage NegotiationImproper Practice ChargePublic Employment RelationsDuty to NegotiateSide Letter AgreementState Finance LawCivil Service LawCPLR article 78
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Communications Workers of America/Graduate Employees Union (CWA) petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to be certified as the bargaining representative for graduate and teaching assistants at State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. Initially, PERB's Director dismissed the petition, concluding that these assistants were not 'public employees' under the Taylor Law, applying a balancing test. PERB subsequently rejected this balancing test, establishing a new standard focused on the existence of a regular and substantial employment relationship not explicitly excluded by the Legislature. Under this new standard, PERB reversed the Director's decision, determining that graduate and teaching assistants are covered employees and constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. SUNY then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, arguing legal error in PERB's adopted test and that collective bargaining for academic issues violated public policy. The court upheld PERB's interpretation as reasonable and legally permissible, affirming PERB's determination and dismissing SUNY's petition.

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy
References
14
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. 518219
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2014

MatterofKentvLefkowitz

This case concerns an appeal filed by Susan M. Kent, President of the Public Employees Federation (PEF), against the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and others. The dispute arose from a 25% wage reduction for seasonal track employees by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, prompting PEF to file an improper practice charge. PERB initially dismissed the charge, asserting that a prior side letter agreement satisfied the duty to negotiate. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding PERB's interpretation of the side letter agreement as sufficiently broad to encompass the unilateral wage reduction to be arbitrary and capricious. The court ruled that the agreement did not make it reasonably clear that the subject of the improper practice charge had been negotiated to completion. The case was remitted to PERB for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Public Employees FederationCollective Bargaining AgreementImproper Practice ChargePublic Employment Relations BoardWage ReductionSeasonal EmployeesDuty to NegotiateSide Letter AgreementCPLR Article 78Appellate Division
References
11
Case No. 32 NY3d 991
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2018

Matter of Spence v. New York State Dept. of Agric. & Mkts.

Petitioners, including Wayne Spence (President of the New York State Public Employees Federation) and two state dairy product specialists, challenged a policy by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. The policy prohibited employees responsible for inspecting regulated entities from campaigning for or holding elected office, citing conflict of interest. Petitioner Gregory Kulzer's request to serve as a county legislator was denied after he had previously been approved and elected, leading to a formal policy revision. Petitioners initiated a hybrid declaratory judgment action/CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing the policy violated First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division rejected their claims, applying the Pickering standard. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order, finding the policy not unconstitutional. However, dissenting Judges Rivera and Wilson argued that the lower courts erred by not applying the heightened 'exacting scrutiny' standard established in United States v Treasury Employees and reaffirmed in Janus v State, County, and Municipal Employees, which applies to widespread limitations on public employee speech. They would have reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration under this stricter standard.

First AmendmentPublic Employee SpeechConflict of InterestHatch ActExacting ScrutinyPickering StandardJudiciary LawFreedom of SpeechGovernment PolicyElected Office
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 6,445 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