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

Sanderson v. Bellevue Maternity Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiff, an at-will employee, was removed from her position at Bellevue Maternity Hospital by her supervisor, Susan Fraley, following a co-worker's allegation of harassment. Plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against the co-worker for defamation and tortious interference, and against Bellevue and Fraley for defamation and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court dismissed the defamation claim against Bellevue and Fraley, citing qualified privilege, and the wrongful discharge claim against Bellevue, upholding the principle of at-will employment. This appeal affirms the dismissal of the defamation claim against Bellevue and Fraley, concluding that Fraley's statements were protected by qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual malice. The court also noted the abandonment of the wrongful discharge claim on appeal.

DefamationAt-Will EmploymentQualified PrivilegeActual MaliceRespondeat SuperiorWrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHarassment AllegationEmployee Relations
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1976

Loos v. New York Telephone Co.

The plaintiff, a 25-year repairman for New York Telephone Company and a union member, was discharged after a 10-day suspension due to alleged misconduct. Following a three-step grievance procedure, the union declined to pursue arbitration on his behalf. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant for wrongful discharge. At the trial stage, the complaint was dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case regarding the union's alleged wrongful refusal to arbitrate. On appeal, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted, with the appellate court referencing *Vaca v Sipes*. The court determined that sufficient evidence existed to make out a prima facie case, asserting that the factual question of the union's conduct should have been presented to a jury.

Wrongful DischargeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureArbitrationFair Representation DutyPrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewNew TrialSuffolk County
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cusumano v. Schlessinger

The plaintiff, an operator employed by Rodin, was discharged on October 2, 1914, after agents of the International Garment Association informed Rodin that the plaintiff was not a union member, violating an agreement between Rodin's association and the defendant. The plaintiff, claiming wrongful discharge and subsequent inability to find work, was awarded $500 in the lower court. However, the defendant appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Rodin had the right to discharge an employee hired for an indefinite term with or without cause. The court also determined that the defendant's truthful statements did not constitute an actionable offense, as the responsibility for discharge rested solely with the employer. Furthermore, no evidence suggested the defendant prevented the plaintiff from seeking other employment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Wrongful dischargeLabor disputeUnion membershipEmployer-employee relationsTrade associationsContractual agreementsAppellate reviewDismissal with costsUnemploymentRight to discharge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spainhouer v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.

Plaintiff was discharged by her employer, Western Electric, after claiming worker's compensation benefits and failing to report for duty. She initiated grievance procedures through her union, Communications Workers of America, as per their contract. Although the local union recommended binding arbitration, the International Union declined to pursue this final step, leading to the waiver of arbitration rights. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Western Electric, alleging the discharge was due to her worker's compensation claim. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that federal law preempted state law in this context and that the union's decision not to pursue arbitration did not grant the plaintiff private rights to litigate a tort claim against her employer.

Wrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentWorker's CompensationLabor Union GrievanceCollective Bargaining AgreementExhaustion of RemediesFederal PreemptionBinding ArbitrationUnion RepresentationTexas Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chatelain v. Mount Sinai Hospital

Plaintiff, discharged from Mount Sinai Hospital for misconduct, was denied unemployment benefits by the New York State Department of Labor. Though the administrative decision was upheld on appeal, plaintiff did not pursue state court review but instead filed a federal action alleging wrongful discharge and breach of duty of fair representation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting collateral estoppel based on the administrative ruling. The District Court denied defendant's motion and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to strike the collateral estoppel defense, holding that administrative agency decisions not reviewed by a state court, especially those from potentially unfair hearings, should not be given preclusive effect in federal court actions under the Labor Management Relations Act.

Wrongful DischargeCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataUnemployment BenefitsAdministrative LawFederal Court JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActDue ProcessSummary JudgmentGrievance Procedures
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Shelby County Government

Victor Austin appealed the trial court's summary judgment which dismissed his wrongful discharge claim against Shelby County Government. Austin's claim was based on alleged violations of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, stemming from his dismissal as a deputy clerk in January 1994. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. It concluded that Austin failed to provide sufficient evidence that his hypertension constituted a "serious health condition" entitling him to FMLA leave, as his physician's report indicated he was able to perform his job functions. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that his discharge was in retaliation for protected activity under THRA or Title VII, as his prior litigation was civil service related and too remote in time to establish a causal link.

Wrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Title VII Civil Rights ActRetaliatory DischargeSerious Health ConditionHypertensionEmployment LawCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between City of Lackawanna & AFSCME, AFL-CIO Local Union No. 1205

This case addresses the determination of compensation due to four City of Lackawanna employees—Levulis, Dombrowski, Plaza, and Michalek—who were wrongfully discharged. An arbitrator initially ordered their reinstatement with full compensation, which the Supreme Court confirmed after the City's attempt to vacate the award was denied and subsequent appeals were dismissed due to lack of prosecution. Despite court orders, the City delayed reinstatement and compensation, leading to a judgment for back pay and a contempt order. The central issue before the court is how to calculate the back pay, specifically concerning deductions for earnings from other employment held concurrently with municipal employment prior to discharge, and claims for vacation, personal leave, and birthday pay. The court ruled that earnings from pre-existing second jobs are not deductible from back pay and that vacation, personal leave, and birthday pay are not due over and above full pay reimbursement, holding the City responsible for the extensive delays.

Wrongful DischargeBack Pay CalculationCivil Service LawDeductions from WagesDual EmploymentArbitration Award EnforcementContempt of CourtPublic Employee RightsReinstatementErie County Supreme Court
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1994

Austin v. Local 1-2

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 17, 1994. The defendants sought to disqualify the plaintiff's attorney, Stuart Bochner, in an action for breach of contract and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court denied the disqualification motion, and that decision was affirmed on appeal. The court held that Bochner's representation of a separate entity related to the defendant union, on unrelated matters, did not create an adverse effect on his professional judgment. Furthermore, his previous role as general counsel for the union ten years prior was not substantially related to his current representation of the plaintiff, thus not warranting disqualification.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestProfessional EthicsBreach of ContractWrongful DischargePrior RepresentationLegal EthicsAppellate ReviewSupreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ethicon, Inc. v. Martinez

Alma Martinez was discharged by her employer, Ethicon, Inc., after receiving a $12,000 workers' compensation award for a wrist injury. She sued Ethicon for wrongful discharge, alleging a violation of article 8307c of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. A jury found in favor of Martinez, awarding actual and exemplary damages. Ethicon appealed, challenging the admissibility of lay opinion testimony, the sufficiency of evidence for the wrongful discharge, and the excessiveness of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that there was no error in admitting the testimony, sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of wrongful discharge, and the exemplary damages were not excessive.

Wrongful DischargeWorkers' CompensationEmployment DiscriminationRepetitive Motion InjuryDe Quervain's SyndromeGanglion CystMedical DisqualificationLay Opinion TestimonyExemplary DamagesSufficiency of Evidence
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E-Tex Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Adair

The case concerns an appeal from a jury verdict in a wrongful discharge suit. Plaintiff Bob Adair, an employee of E-Tex Dairy Queen, Inc., claimed he was wrongfully fired twice in 1975 for filing a worker's compensation claim. The jury found he was wrongfully discharged in November 1975 and awarded him $5,548.00 for lost earnings. On appeal, E-Tex Dairy Queen, Inc. argued a defect in parties and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for both wrongful discharge and damages. The appellate court found no judicial admission regarding the proper defendant and sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings, ultimately affirming the trial court's judgment.

Wrongful dischargeRetaliatory dischargeWorker's compensationJudicial admissionPleading defectEvidence sufficiencyLoss of earningsTexas lawAppellate reviewEmployment law
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,608 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