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

Guillen v. Marshalls of MA, Inc.

Martin Guillen sued Marshalls for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA, alleging that as an Assistant Store Manager (ASM), he and other ASMs primarily performed non-managerial duties despite their exempt classification. He sought conditional certification for a nationwide collective action. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, reviewed affidavits from Guillen and other ASMs detailing their duties, as well as counter-affidavits from Marshalls. The court denied Guillen's motion for a nationwide collective action, citing insufficient factual evidence to demonstrate that ASMs across all 820 Marshalls stores nationwide were similarly situated in performing primarily non-exempt tasks. However, the denial was without prejudice to a future application for a more limited class.

FLSAOvertime WagesConditional CertificationCollective ActionAssistant Store ManagerEmployee MisclassificationExempt EmployeeNon-exempt EmployeeManagerial DutiesNon-Managerial Duties
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Marshall v. Savannah Sausage Corp.

This appeal concerns a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board disallowing a claimant's application for death benefits as untimely and denying counsel fees. James Marshall, a marketing consultant, sustained serious injuries in a 1977 motor vehicle accident and later died in 1981. His widow, the claimant, filed a death claim in 1984, which was deemed untimely by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently affirmed by the Board, as it was not filed within two years of Marshall's death. Additionally, the Board denied counsel fees, ruling that compensation benefits would not exceed the third-party settlement Marshall received, thus rendering further legal efforts futile. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the untimely filing of the death claim and concurring that no counsel fees lien was applicable.

Death BenefitsTimeliness of ClaimCounsel FeesThird-Party SettlementWorkers' Compensation LawInsurance CarrierDisability ClaimAppealLienWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1998

Marshall v. New York Division of State Police

Plaintiff Margaret A. Naughton Marshall, an employee of the State of New York Division of State Police, brought a civil action alleging sex discrimination under Title VII and retaliation. She claimed two denials of promotion due to gender and subsequent retaliation after filing an EEOC complaint. Defendants moved for Summary Judgment, which the Court partially granted. While the Court dismissed Marshall's 1994 failure to promote claim and all retaliation claims due to insufficient evidence, it did not dismiss the 1992 failure to promote claim. This was because a factual issue regarding defendants' motives, stemming from an alleged conversation about gender bias, required resolution by a trier of fact.

Sex DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliation ClaimPromotion DenialSummary JudgmentEEOC ComplaintGender BiasBurden-Shifting AnalysisPretextPrima Facie Case
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. State of New York Division of State Police

This Memorandum-Decision & Order addresses Margaret A. Naughton Marshall's motion for attorneys' fees and costs after she partially prevailed in a Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the State of New York Division of State Police. The court evaluated fee applications from her two legal counsels, Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C., and Higgins, Roberts, Beyerl & Coan, P.C. Utilizing the lodestar method, the court significantly reduced claimed hours due to lack of specificity or unreasonableness. Further reductions of 50% were applied to both firms' awards, reflecting Marshall's limited overall success in the litigation. Additionally, Ruberti Firm's award was cut by another 50% due to its disqualification for a conflict of interest. Ultimately, the court granted partial attorneys' fees and costs to both firms.

Attorneys' FeesCostsTitle VIICivil Rights ActSex DiscriminationRetaliationLodestar MethodConflict of InterestDisqualificationBackpay
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. Burger King Corp.

The defendant, Burger King Corp., applied for an amendment to the findings of fact from a December 10, 1980 Memorandum Decision and Order. The court granted the Rule 52(b) motion to supplement previous findings, particularly regarding defendant's record-keeping and overtime-pay obligations for Assistant Managers in the New York area. The judgment's relief is extended beyond the initial two districts or five restaurants due to evidence of systemic issues emanating from the regional level. The court also addressed the Secretary's claim regarding Assistant Managers earning above the short-form test exemption. Prejudgment interest was awarded at the adjusted prime rate, rejecting the defendant's good faith argument due to willful violations. The defendant's application for a stay of judgment pending appeal was granted, except for record-keeping obligations, conditional on filing bonds and prosecuting the appeal.

Overtime PayFair Labor Standards ActRule 52(b) MotionPrejudgment InterestWillful ViolationsRecord-KeepingEquitable PowersFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureAssistant ManagersStay of Judgment
References
15
Case No. ADJ2634372 (OAK 0327509) ADJ 4625679 (OAK 0327510)
Regular
May 05, 2010

HEIDI MARSHALL vs. VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration for both applicant Heidi Marshall and defendant Visalia Unified School District regarding a February 16, 2010 decision. This action was taken to allow the Board further time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented. The WCAB determined this was necessary for a complete understanding and to ensure a just and reasoned decision. Further proceedings may be ordered after this review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting PetitionStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersSan FranciscoCalifornia
References
0
Case No. ADJ2634372 (OAK 0327509)
Regular
Jan 21, 2011

THE INDI MARSHALL vs. VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

In this case, the applicant, Heidi Marshall, appealed the original findings of her permanent disability rating and the lack of a work offer from her employer, Visalia Unified School District. The Board granted reconsideration, amending the temporary disability award to end on February 5, 2007. Crucially, the Board reversed the original finding on the 15% permanent disability increase under Labor Code section 4658(d)(2), finding that the applicant's retirement was directly caused by her injuries, thus entitling her to the increase despite not having received a work offer. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision regarding apportionment and the exclusion of the Agreed Medical Examiner's specific impairment percentage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerWhole Person ImpairmentLabor Code section 4658(d)(2)Modified WorkAlternative WorkPermanent and Stationary
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.A. Marshall Sheet Metal & Roofing, Inc. v. State of New York

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviews a determination by the Department of Economic Development denying the petitioner's request for certification as a woman-owned business enterprise. The petitioner, a New York corporation involved in sheet metal construction, was deemed ineligible. The court found that the respondent misinterpreted its rules by focusing on when the owner, Eva Marshall, acquired her interest rather than at the time of the application. The determination was annulled, and the matter remitted to the respondent for reconsideration using the appropriate eligibility factors. A concurring and dissenting opinion argued for annulling the determination due to lack of substantial evidence and irrationality, without remittal.

woman-owned business enterpriseWBE certificationCPLR Article 78administrative revieweligibility criteriastandard of reviewremittalsubstantial evidenceNew York laweconomic development
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. N.Y. State Pub. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc.

Plaintiff Brewster Marshall, a high school student with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, sued the Commissioner of Education of New York and athletic associations for denying him extended athletic eligibility to play basketball. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (SAC) or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot due to his imminent graduation and the end of the basketball season, and that she had absolute judicial and legislative immunity. The Court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief and the ADA claim for monetary damages, finding them moot or conceded by the Plaintiff. However, the Court denied the Commissioner's request for dismissal based on absolute judicial and legislative immunity and also denied the dismissal of the Section 504 monetary claim, stating that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference.

Disability discriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation Act Section 504Athletic eligibilityMootness doctrineAbsolute immunity (judicial)Absolute immunity (legislative)Deliberate indifferenceSovereign immunityDeclaratory relief
References
127
Case No. ADJ7422830
Regular
Jun 20, 2012

SALLY BRAITHWAITE MARSHALL vs. SANTA MARIA JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATORS

The Applicant, Sally Braithwaite Marshall, petitioned for removal to reverse an order denying a change of venue, seeking to consolidate two claims venued at different district offices. She argued both applications should be heard in Goleta. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the Applicant's request was, in fact, a petition for consolidation. The Board directed the Applicant to follow the proper procedure under Rule 10260, which requires referral to the presiding WCJs for resolution before the Appeals Board.

Petition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenueApplication for Adjudication of ClaimConsolidation of CasesDistrict Office VenuePresiding WCJsRule 10260Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy CommissionerAdministrative Law Judge
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 60 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