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

Bernard v. Local 100, Transport Workers Union

The plaintiffs, Carlyle Bernard and John Simino, members of Local 100, Transport Workers Union of America, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their union from barring Bernard's candidacy for Recording Secretary. Bernard was disqualified due to a union bylaw requiring minimum meeting attendance, which he could not meet due to his work schedule. The plaintiffs argued that this rule was an unreasonable restriction on candidate eligibility under Title I of the LMRDA, thereby denying members equal rights to nominate and vote. The Court denied the preliminary injunction, stating that the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits. The decision highlighted that Title I primarily addresses direct discrimination in voting rights, not challenges to uniformly applied eligibility requirements, which are typically governed by Title IV's post-election enforcement by the Secretary of Labor. The Court also suggested the plaintiffs exhaust internal union remedies.

Union ElectionsLMRDA Title ILMRDA Title IVCandidate EligibilityMeeting Attendance RulesPreliminary InjunctionEqual RightsUnion BylawsInternal Union RemediesJudicial Review
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re New York Electrical Worker' Union

This case concerns a dispute over the validity of an election held by the New York Electrical Workers' Union after a period of receivership. Petitioner Maurice B. Jarvis challenged the election, alleging that no notice was given to members about the termination of the receivership or the annual meeting, and that a quorum was not present. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the application. On appeal, the court examined the union's by-laws regarding meeting notices and quorums, noting inconsistencies and non-compliance with the Membership Corporations Law. The appellate court found that while no statute or by-law explicitly required notice for annual meetings, the context of the receivership made it advisable. Critically, the court determined that the common-law rule for voluntary associations, where any number present constitutes a quorum, did not apply to a corporation governed by statute. Given that only 20 members were present out of 1,200, no valid quorum was established under any by-law provision or the Membership Corporations Law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's dismissal, ordered the election to be set aside, and mandated a new election with proper notice to all eligible members.

Corporate Election DisputeUnion GovernanceReceivership ImpactBy-law InterpretationQuorum RequirementsNotice of MeetingsGeneral Corporation LawMembership Corporations LawAppellate ReviewCorporate Law
References
8
Case No. M2002-02116-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2004

Overnite Transportation v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480

This case originated from a labor dispute in October 1999, involving Overnite Transportation Company and Teamsters Local Union No. 480. Overnite sought injunctive relief against the union for alleged violence during a strike at its Nashville facility and later amended its complaint to include claims for civil contempt due to injunction violations and intentional interference with business relations. The trial court dismissed the civil contempt petition as moot and the intentional interference claim for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the dismissal of the civil contempt petition, holding that Overnite could seek compensatory damages for the union's contemptuous conduct, even if the conduct had ceased. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the intentional interference claim, finding that Overnite's complaint failed to meet the necessary pleading requirements.

Labor DisputeInjunction ViolationCivil ContemptCompensatory DamagesIntentional InterferenceBusiness RelationsAppellate ReviewMootness DoctrineInjunction BondRule 65.05(1)
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.M. Perlman Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dresses, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1

This case involves R.M. Perlman, d/b/a Rebecca Moses Collection (RMC), a garment industry employer, suing two labor unions, Local 89-22-1 and the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union. The suit stemmed from picketing aimed at compelling RMC to enter into a Hazantown Agreement, which RMC alleged involved violence and caused substantial losses. The amended complaint included federal claims under the National Labor Relations Act and state law claims such as prima facie tort, intentional interference with contractual relations, and defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss the state law claims, arguing federal preemption and RMC's failure to meet New York's specific pleading requirements for actions against unincorporated associations. The court found the state law claims were not preempted due to allegations of violent picketing, aligning with exceptions to federal preemption. However, the court ultimately granted the dismissal of the state law claims (counts two through seven) because RMC failed to allege that every single union member authorized or ratified the violent acts, as required by the New York Court of Appeals decision in Martin v. Curran. Additionally, the individual defendants Byer and Mazur were dismissed because the remaining federal claim under the Labor-Management Relations Act does not allow for individual liability. A motion to dismiss Rebecca Moses as a plaintiff was denied, pending further evidence on her standing. Plaintiffs were granted thirty days to replead the dismissed state law claims.

Labor LawFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsUnincorporated AssociationsUnion LiabilityViolent PicketingHazantown AgreementMotion to DismissNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fields v. Teamsters Local Union No. 988

Maria E. Fields sued Teamsters Local Union 988 and Terry Lovan for gender discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment under the TCHRA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Fields alleged Lovan, her trustee/supervisor, sexually harassed her over three months, using his authority to coerce her, and she was subsequently fired after complaining. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment for the Union on the sexual harassment claim, noting the Union did not meet the TCHRA's employer definition. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for the Union on the retaliation claim and for both the Union and Lovan on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, finding sufficient evidence for these claims to proceed to trial.

Gender DiscriminationRetaliationSexual HarassmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTCHRANo-Evidence Summary JudgmentLabor Union LiabilityEmployer Authority AbuseWorkplace HarassmentEmotional Distress Severity
References
51
Case No. 14-0901
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2016

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. William Nami

William Nami, a Union Pacific Railroad employee, contracted West Nile virus from a mosquito bite while working in Brazoria County, Texas. He sued Union Pacific under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligence for failing to provide a reasonably safe workplace. The jury found Union Pacific 80% responsible, and the trial court awarded Nami damages, which the court of appeals affirmed. On review, the Supreme Court of Texas considered the common-law doctrine of ferae naturae, which limits a property owner's liability for harm from indigenous wild animals unless the owner reduces them to possession, attracts them, or knows of an unreasonable risk. The Court concluded that Union Pacific did not meet these conditions, as it did not attract mosquitoes, could not control them, and the risk of serious infection was not unreasonable, thus precluding liability under FELA. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment for Union Pacific.

FELAFerae NaturaeWest Nile VirusMosquito BitesWorkplace SafetyEmployer LiabilityCommon Law NegligenceCausationIndigenous AnimalsForeseeability
References
32
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, Local Union No. 782 v. Texas Employment Commission

This case concerns an appeal by the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local Union No. 782, AFI-CIO, and 99 individuals challenging a Texas Employment Commission (TEC) decision that denied unemployment compensation benefits. The dispute arose from a General Electric Company plant shutdown in 1957. The appellate court addressed jurisdictional issues related to the aggregate claims amount and venue for non-resident claimants. It affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the union as a party plaintiff, but reversed decisions regarding claimants deemed voluntarily unemployed or not totally unemployed who did not receive immediate vacation pay. The court affirmed the denial of benefits for 11 claimants who received vacation pay prior to the shutdown.

Unemployment CompensationJurisdictionVenueClass Action SuitVoluntary UnemploymentTotal UnemploymentVacation PayCollective Bargaining AgreementStatutory InterpretationJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 17 v. Swank Associated Co.

The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 17, initiated an action to compel arbitration against Swank Associated Company, Inc., following a labor grievance. Swank removed the case to federal court and filed a third-party action against Local 210, arguing the matter constituted a jurisdictional dispute not subject to arbitration. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Schroeder, examined the collective bargaining agreement to determine the arbitrability of the dispute. It concluded that while an arbitrator could determine if the issue was a jurisdictional dispute, they could not resolve it on the merits if it was found to be jurisdictional. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the grievance was directed to arbitration solely to ascertain whether it constituted a jurisdictional dispute under the agreement.

Labor LawArbitration AgreementJurisdictional DisputesCollective BargainingLabor Management Relations ActFederal CourtPleadings MotionContract InterpretationArbitrabilityUnion Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17 v. Union Concrete & Construction Corp.

Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO ("Local 17") filed a grievance against Union Concrete and Construction Corporation ("UCC") to compel arbitration regarding UCC's emergency snow removal work for Erie County in November 2014, alleging violations of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). UCC argued the work was not covered by the CBA's "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" definition, rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation to grant UCC's motion for summary judgment and deny Local 17's. United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara conducted a de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings in their entirety, concluding that the emergency snow removal work did not constitute "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" under the CBA. Consequently, Local 17’s motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was denied, and UCC’s motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the closure of the case.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilitySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmergency Snow RemovalHeavy ConstructionHighway ConstructionScope of Arbitration ClauseDe Novo Review
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 3,821 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