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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jennings v. Minco Technology Labs, Inc.

Brenda L. Jennings sued her employer, Mineo Technology Labs, Inc., seeking to prevent the company from implementing a random drug-testing program for employees via urinalysis, arguing it violated common-law privacy rights. The company counterclaimed, asserting its plan was lawful. The trial court sided with the employer, declaring the plan lawful and enforceable, denying Jennings relief, and awarding attorney's fees to the company. On appeal, Jennings challenged both the lawfulness of the plan and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning that 'at-will' employment allows employers to modify terms, and an employee's consent to testing, even if economically compelled, negates an unlawful invasion of privacy. The court also upheld the attorney's fees award, finding no abuse of discretion.

Employment LawDrug TestingPrivacy RightsAt-Will EmploymentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefEmployer RightsEmployee RightsCommon LawContract Law
References
12
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

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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04673 [241 AD3d 726]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2025

Shujing Yu v. Mask Pot, Inc.

In this putative class action, Shujing Yu sought unpaid overtime wages from Mask Pot, Inc., BK Spice World, Inc., and several individuals, alleging they operated as joint employers and a single enterprise. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding sufficient allegations that BK Spice, Hui Fang, and Wei Zhao were employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Labor Law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, holding that the complaint adequately pleaded both functional control and a single integrated enterprise under the economic reality test.

Overtime WagesFair Labor Standards ActLabor LawJoint EmployersEconomic Reality TestSingle EnterpriseAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissSufficiency of PleadingFunctional Control
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 1996

St. Germain v. Simmons Airline

Barbara St. Germain filed a Title VII claim against Simmons Airlines, Inc. and AMR Corp., alleging reverse discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress following her termination from a flight attendant training program. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the absence of an employment relationship, which is a prerequisite for a Title VII claim. Applying the economic realities/control test and various factors, the Court determined that St. Germain was not an employee of the defendants. Consequently, the Title VII claim was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the supplemental state law claim was also dismissed. Additionally, claims against AMR Eagle Inc. were dismissed due to lack of service.

Title VIIEmployment DiscriminationReverse DiscriminationFlight Attendant Training ProgramEconomic Realities/Control TestSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissPro Se LitigantIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressFederal Civil Procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Winfield v. Babylon Beauty School of Smithtown Inc.

The case addresses allegations that cosmetology students were not paid minimum or overtime wages for performing services in defendant-operated clinics. Plaintiffs Winfield, Allen, and Carcani sued Babylon Beauty School, Long Island Beauty School, and individual owners, citing violations of the FLSA, NYLL, and Florida Constitution. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court denied dismissal for the FLSA and NYLL claims, finding a plausible employer-employee relationship under the "economic reality" test for the schools and owners. However, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the Florida Constitution claim, dismissing it due to unresolved state law issues regarding pre-suit notice requirements.

Wage and Hour DisputeFLSA ClaimsNYLL ClaimsMotion to DismissCosmetology School LiabilityStudent Worker StatusUncompensated LaborEconomic Reality TestSupplemental JurisdictionFlorida Wage Law Conflict
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. ABC Carpet & Home

Plaintiff Richard Lee sued ABC Carpet & Home, Jerry Weinrib, and Paul Chapman for back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, asserting he was an employee. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending Lee was an independent contractor. The court employed the five-factor 'Economic Reality Test' to determine employment status. Significant factual disputes emerged concerning employer control, Lee's potential for profit or loss, the required skill for the work, the permanence of the working relationship, and whether carpet installation was an integral part of ABC's business. Given these unresolved material facts, the court denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorSummary Judgment MotionEconomic Reality TestWage DisputesEmployment LawCarpet InstallersEmployer Control
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 1,263 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