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

Falcon v. Starbucks Corp.

Plaintiff Falcon, a former Assistant Store Manager for Starbucks, filed a collective action under the FLSA, alleging Starbucks failed to pay overtime wages to Assistant Store Managers (ASMs). The Court initially granted conditional class certification, leading 355 ASMs to opt into the lawsuit. Defendants moved to decertify the collective action, arguing that the plaintiffs were not similarly situated, defenses were individualized, and the action would be unmanageable. The Court denied the motion, finding that the opt-in plaintiffs were similarly situated due to common job titles, descriptions, pay provisions, and a pervasive environment created by Starbucks' policies that incentivized off-the-clock work and time shaving. The Court also concluded that individualized defenses could be addressed through representative testimony and that fairness considerations favored maintaining the collective action, upholding the remedial purposes of the FLSA.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAOvertime WagesCollective ActionClass CertificationDecertification MotionOff-the-Clock WorkTime ShavingAssistant Store ManagersStarbucks
References
38
Case No. 604, 605, 674, 676, 694
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Bruister & Associates

This case involves claims by over 1,700 cable technicians against DirecTV, Bruister and Associates, Inc., and Herbert C. Bruister for uncompensated off-the-clock work and other FLSA violations. The technicians allege a "culture of off-the-clock work" where they were expected to perform tasks like pre-calling customers, inventorying tools, pre-building dishes, and cleaning vehicles without pay, both before and after their recorded work hours. They also claim improper calculation of overtime rates and minimum wage violations for piece-rate workers. Defendants filed motions to decertify the collective action and to dismiss claims against DirecTV and Mr. Bruister, arguing that the technicians were not similarly situated and that individualized inquiries into damages would be too complex. The Court denied these motions, finding that common issues of liability predominated and that a collective action was appropriate given the relaxed burden of proof for damages in FLSA cases where employer records are inadequate. The Court also emphasized the importance of collective actions for plaintiffs with small individual monetary harms.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActWage and HourOvertimeUnpaid WagesOff-the-Clock WorkCollective ActionClass ActionDecertificationPiece-rate Pay
References
29
Case No. 15
Regular Panel Decision

Dyson v. Stuart Petroleum Testers, Inc.

Plaintiff Rory Dyson initiated a collective action against Stuart Petroleum Testers, Inc. and Scott Yariger, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Dyson, a 'flow tester,' claimed that he and other similarly situated workers were misclassified as independent contractors and consequently denied overtime pay for hours exceeding forty per week. The plaintiff filed a motion seeking conditional certification of the lawsuit as a collective action under the FLSA. Applying the lenient Lusardi two-stage approach, the Court found sufficient evidence indicating the existence of similarly situated individuals and a widespread discriminatory practice by the defendants. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, established the definition of the collective action, and ordered the defendants to provide contact information for potential class members.

FLSACollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime PayIndependent Contractor MisclassificationFlow TestersOil and Gas IndustryWage and Hour DisputeOpt-in PlaintiffsLusardi Approach
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Electric Alarm Trade Ass'n v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This action was initiated under Section 301(a) of the National Labor Relations Act by a plaintiff seeking $450,000 in damages from a defendant union. The plaintiff alleged a breach of Article VIII, section III of their collective bargaining agreement, which stipulated the union's obligation to organize the burglar alarm industry. The defendant moved to dismiss the action or, alternatively, to stay proceedings pending arbitration. The Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, affirming the validity of the plaintiff's claim for relief. However, the Court granted the alternate motion, concluding that the dispute fell within the broad arbitration clause of the collective bargaining agreement and ordered the proceedings to be stayed pending arbitration.

Labor LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractNational Labor Relations ActStay of ProceedingsDamages ClaimUnion ObligationsGrievance ProcedureFederal Court Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2013

Vanzzini v. Action Meat Distributors, Inc.

This case involves a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action filed by Juan Vanzzini against Action Meat Distributors, Inc. and J. Fred Cramm, alleging violations of overtime pay provisions. The court addressed motions for partial summary judgment on the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption, decertification of the conditionally certified class, and summary judgment against Juan Vanzzini's claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the MCA exemption, exempting most drivers but denying it for Rufus Flanagan. The court granted the decertification motion, narrowing the collective action to Juan Vanzzini and Margarito Zavala, while dismissing the claims of Rufus Flanagan, Yolanda Salazar, and Maria Cereza without prejudice due to disparate work duties and individualized defenses. Finally, the court denied the motion for summary judgment against Vanzzini, affirming his written consent to join the collective action.

FLSAOvertime CompensationMotor Carrier Act ExemptionCollective ActionSummary JudgmentClass DecertificationEmployment LawTrucking IndustryInterstate CommerceFifth Circuit Precedent
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graff v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.

This memorandum and order addresses a class action lawsuit filed by Thomas Graff against United Collection Bureau, Inc. under the FDCPA. The parties sought final certification of a class action and approval of a cy pres settlement. The proposed settlement included payments to a public interest organization, the representative plaintiff, administration costs, and attorneys' fees. However, one class member objected to various aspects, including the scope of the release and the class's geographic scope. The court ultimately denied final approval of the settlement, citing concerns with the broad release, the unexplained expansion of the class size without commensurate benefit, and the exclusive cy pres remedy, while upholding the magistrate judge's jurisdiction. The court also modified the class to be limited solely to the New York class.

Class Action SettlementFDCPA LitigationMagistrate Judge JurisdictionCy Pres RemedyDebt Collection PracticesRule 23(e) ReviewProcedural FairnessSubstantive FairnessScope of ReleaseClass Definition
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Kingsport Press, Inc.

The plaintiffs, officials of various labor unions, initiated class actions against the defendant, alleging a breach of collective bargaining agreements due to the defendant's refusal to pay vacation pay on March 22, 1963. The employees ceased work on March 11, 1963, to commence an economic strike, thereby voluntarily terminating their employment before the specified vacation pay date. The court analyzed the collective bargaining agreements, emphasizing the clear language requiring employees to be "on the payroll" on the fourth Friday in March. The court concluded that striking employees, by voluntarily terminating their employment, did not meet the eligibility criteria for vacation pay. Consequently, the court found that the employees were not entitled to the relief sought.

Collective BargainingVacation PayLabor UnionsEconomic StrikeEmployment TerminationContract InterpretationEmployee RightsVested RightsPayroll EligibilityClass Action
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. New York City Office of Collective Bargaining

This case concerns an appeal regarding the New York City Fire Department's "zero tolerance" policy, which mandates automatic termination for EMS employees who fail or refuse drug tests. Unions representing these employees argued that this policy should be subject to mandatory collective bargaining. The New York City Board of Collective Bargaining and a lower court ruled against the unions, asserting that the policy falls under management's disciplinary rights. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that disciplinary actions for EMS personnel are the sole province of the Fire Commissioner under the New York City Charter, and that deterring illegal drug use by EMS workers is critical to public safety and the FDNY's core mission.

Public SafetyEmergency Medical Services (EMS)Drug Testing PolicyZero ToleranceCollective BargainingMandatory BargainingNew York City Fire Department (FDNY)Fire CommissionerDisciplinary AuthorityNew York City Charter
References
12
Case No. Action No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Felicciardi v. Town of Brookhaven

Maureen Felicciardi was injured after slipping and falling on a negligently waxed floor in a federal building. She commenced two actions for damages, Action No. 1 in Suffolk County and Action No. 2 in New York County, naming Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. as a defendant. Nelson moved for summary judgment in Action No. 1 due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion. The Supreme Court denied Nelson's motion and excused the plaintiffs' default. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiffs' lengthy and inadequately explained delay in complying with the discovery order, especially given the potential prejudice to Nelson in proving negligence years after the incident. Consequently, the complaint in Action No. 1 was dismissed against Nelson.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsOrder of PreclusionExcusable DefaultLaw Office FailureAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNegligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hudson-Berlind Corp. v. Local 807, Affiliated With the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

This case involves an action for a stay of arbitration. The Petitioner, a housewares distribution corporation, and P & Z Transportation Co. had a collective bargaining agreement with the Respondent, a labor organization. After Petitioner moved facilities and P & Z went out of business, Respondent sought arbitration regarding the termination of drivers. The Petitioner initiated an action for a stay of arbitration. The court considered N.L.R.B. findings that Petitioner and Bay Trucking Co. were not joint employers and that the original collective bargaining agreement did not cover the discharged drivers. Citing collateral estoppel from the N.L.R.B. decision, the court granted Petitioner's motion for summary judgment, denied Respondent's motion, and permanently stayed the arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementN.L.R.B. DecisionRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentLabor DisputeStay of ArbitrationJoint EmployersTermination of Agreement
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 11,263 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