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

University of Texas at El Paso v. Magdalena Ochoa

Magdalena Ochoa, a former temporary employee, sued The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). This appeal by UTEP challenges the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity and arguing it was not Ochoa's employer. The appellate court examined the hybrid economic realities/common law control test and the Rennels test for standing. While finding UTEP did not satisfy the economic realities component of an employer-employee relationship, the court concluded that a fact issue existed regarding UTEP's control over Ochoa's employment opportunities for standing under the Rennels test. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny UTEP's plea to the jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliationGovernmental ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Commission on Human Rights ActEmployer-Employee RelationshipHybrid Economic Realities TestCommon Law Control TestRennels Test
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LeMaster v. Alternative Healthcare Solutions, Inc.

The court addressed a motion for summary judgment in a case where plaintiffs, Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), alleged misclassification as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), leading to unpaid overtime wages. The memorandum explains the court's application of the 'economic realities' test to determine employee status and the 'economic realities' test for employer status. The court granted summary judgment against Alternative Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (AHS) and its owners, Mickey and Gia Ruggiero, finding them jointly and severally liable as employers for unpaid overtime. However, summary judgment was denied against Volunteer Staffing, Inc. (VSI), Baley Allred III, and Home Health Care of Middle Tennessee LLC (HHC) due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the willfulness of VSI's FLSA violation and HHC's employer status and Allred's operational control over HHC.

FLSAOvertime CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployee MisclassificationSummary JudgmentJoint EmployerEconomic Realities TestWillful ViolationStatute of LimitationsLicensed Practical Nurse (LPN)
References
32
Case No. 23 NY3d 906
Regular Panel Decision

The Matter of Walter E. Carver v. State of New York

Petitioner Carver, a 69-year-old Vietnam War veteran, participated in the City of New York's Work Experience Program (WEP) from 1993 to 2000, performing tasks like sorting mail and sweeping floors in exchange for public assistance and food stamps. In 2007, after winning $10,000 in the New York State Lottery, the State, through OTDA, recouped $5,000 under Social Services Law § 131-r (1) to reimburse itself for past public assistance benefits. Carver initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging this recoupment violated his rights under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Minimum Wage Act, arguing that the recoupment effectively reduced his compensation below minimum wage, as he was an "employee" under the FLSA. The Supreme Court initially dismissed his claim, but the Appellate Division reinstated the FLSA cause of action, applying the "economic reality test" and concluding that WEP participants are FLSA employees. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the City should be considered Carver's employer under the FLSA's "economic reality test" due to factors like control over work, supervision, and maintenance of records, and that WEP workers are entitled to minimum wage protections, thus preventing the State from retroactively depriving Carver of minimum wage through benefit recoupment.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Work Experience Program (WEP)Minimum WagePublic AssistanceWelfare ReformEconomic Reality TestEmployee StatusLottery WinningsRecoupment of BenefitsState Law Preemption
References
18
Case No. 12-CV-8450 (JMF)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2014

Saleem v. Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd.

Plaintiffs, a group of drivers for a black car business, sued the Defendants, a consortium of transportation and franchisor entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid overtime. The central issue was whether the drivers should be classified as 'employees' or 'independent contractors.' The Court, after cross-motions for summary judgment, applied the economic reality test for FLSA and the control test for NYLL. The Court determined that, under both statutes, the drivers were independent contractors due to their control over their schedules, ability to work for competitors, significant business investments, and independent initiative. Consequently, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Independent ContractorEmployee MisclassificationFLSANYLLBlack Car BusinessDriversSummary JudgmentEconomic Reality TestControl TestLabor Law
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jean-Louis v. Metropolitan Cable Communications, Inc.

Current and former Metro technicians sued Metropolitan Cable Communications, Inc., its executives, and Time Warner Cable of New York City for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Time Warner moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not a joint employer of the technicians. The Court applied the 'economic reality' test, assessing factors of formal and functional control. Finding that Time Warner lacked significant control over hiring, firing, schedules, payment, or records, and that most functional control factors also weighed against joint employment, the Court granted Time Warner's motion for summary judgment. The sole factor supporting joint employment, that Metro technicians worked exclusively for Time Warner, was deemed insufficient to establish an employer relationship.

FLSAOvertime PayJoint EmploymentEconomic Reality TestSummary JudgmentSubcontractingCable TechniciansEmployer-Employee RelationshipFormal ControlFunctional Control
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Magallanes v. PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC

Plaintiff Rafael Magallanes filed a motion to remand his discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Gruma Corporation d/b/a Mission Foods and Penske Logistics, LLC, back to state court. The case was removed to federal court by Penske based on diversity jurisdiction, arguing Mission Foods was improperly joined as there was no employer-employee relationship with the plaintiff. The Court examined whether Mission was an employer under the 'hybrid economic realities/common law control test' and if it controlled access to the plaintiff's employment opportunities with Penske. While a direct employer-employee relationship was not established, the Court found Mission's influence on Penske's personnel decisions constituted control over Magallanes's employment opportunities. Therefore, Mission was deemed a properly joined party, negating complete diversity, and the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand was granted.

Remand motionDiversity jurisdictionImproper joinderEmployer-employee relationshipTexas Commission on Human Rights ActDiscrimination claimRetaliation claimControl testEconomic realities testInterference with employment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hatcher v. Augustus

The plaintiff, Philip Hatcher, a 7-Eleven store manager, initiated an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against the franchisee, Warner Augustus, and the franchisor, Southland Corporation. Hatcher alleged wrongful termination based on his religion after being fired for refusing to work on Sunday mornings. Southland Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not Hatcher's employer within the context of Title VII. The court applied a 'hybrid test,' which combines economic realities and common law agency tests, to determine employer status. Despite Southland providing payroll services to the franchisee, the court found that Augustus had exclusive control over Hatcher's employment. The court concluded that Southland was not Hatcher's 'employer' under Title VII and granted Southland's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it.

Title VIIReligious DiscriminationFranchisor LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementHybrid TestControl TestEconomic Realities TestEmployment Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Arena v. Delux Transportation Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Joseph Arena sued Delux Transportation Services, Inc. and related entities, claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York State Labor Law (NYLL), New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), and wrongful conversion. Arena argued he was an employee entitled to labor law protections, while defendants asserted he was an independent contractor. The Court applied the "economic reality test" under both FLSA and New York law, considering factors like control over work, opportunity for profit/loss, skill, permanence of relationship, and integral nature of the work. The Court found that Arena drove at his convenience, set his own schedule, retained all fares, and was not significantly controlled or supervised by the defendants. Consequently, the Court determined there was no employer-employee relationship under either FLSA or New York law, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing all claims.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorEconomic Reality TestTaxicab DriverWage ClaimsOvertime PayMinimum Wage
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P.

This case involves a collective-action lawsuit filed by William Parrish and other plaintiffs against Premier Directional Drilling, L.P., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) due to misclassification as independent contractors rather than employees. The core issue was whether the plaintiffs, who worked as Directional Drillers Consultants (DDs) and Measurement While Drilling Consultants (MWDs), were employees or independent contractors under the FLSA's economic reality test. The Court analyzed five factors: degree of control, relative investments, opportunity for profit and loss, skill and initiative, and permanency of the relationship. Ultimately, the Court found that the plaintiffs were employees, concluding that Premier exerted significant control over their work and compensation, and their investments in the job were substantially less than Premier's. Consequently, the Court denied Premier's motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and awarded the plaintiffs $363,422.00 in compensatory and liquidated damages.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Employment MisclassificationIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentOvertime CompensationBack WagesLiquidated DamagesEconomic Reality TestOil and Gas Industry
References
46
Case No. NO. 14-13-00117-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2015

MEMC Pasadena, Inc. v. Riddle Power, LLC and Triad Electric and Controls, Inc.

MEMC Pasadena, Inc. sustained damages due to an electrical accident at its industrial plant, causing a shutdown and loss of production. MEMC sued its electrical contractor, Triad Electric and Controls, Inc., and Triad’s subcontractor, Riddle Power, LLC, alleging breach of contract against Triad and negligence against both. Following a jury trial, MEMC was awarded damages against Riddle, but a take-nothing judgment for Triad. On appeal, MEMC challenged various aspects of the trial, including the sufficiency of evidence and jury charges. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on contract terms, estoppel, and MEMC's comparative negligence, and applying the economic loss rule to bar MEMC's negligence claim against Triad.

Electrical AccidentIndustrial Plant ShutdownBreach of ContractNegligence ClaimSubcontractor LiabilityJury Verdict ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceEconomic Loss RuleComparative Responsibility
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 3,207 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