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

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kastor v. Sam's Wholesale Club

Plaintiff William A. Kastor sued Sam’s Wholesale Club for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Kastor, a bakery department manager, argued he was not exempt from overtime requirements as he spent most of his time on non-managerial tasks. Sam's contended that Kastor was an executive or administrative employee, thus exempt under FLSA regulations. The court applied the FLSA 'short test' for executive exemption, finding Kastor's primary duty was management of the bakery department, despite his claims of time spent on non-managerial duties. The court considered the importance of his managerial tasks, his exercise of discretion, and his supervision of other employees. The court granted Sam’s Wholesale Club’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing the action with prejudice, concluding that Kastor was an exempt executive employee.

overtime compensationFair Labor Standards ActFLSAexecutive exemptionadministrative exemptionsummary judgmentprimary dutymanagementbakery departmentwage and hour
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rainey v. McWane, Inc.

Plaintiffs Lonzo Rainey, Jr. and a collective class of production supervisors sued Defendant McWane, Inc. d/b/a Tyler Pipe for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), claiming they were misclassified as exempt employees and denied overtime pay. Tyler Pipe moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs were correctly classified as executive employees exempt from overtime requirements. The court analyzed whether the plaintiffs' "primary duty" was management and if their recommendations regarding employee status were given "particular weight," both key criteria for executive exemption under FLSA regulations. The court found that plaintiffs' responsibilities, including supervising, training, directing work, initiating discipline, and ensuring safety, constituted primary management duties. Additionally, their weekly evaluations of new hires and initiation of disciplinary actions were given particular weight by HR. Consequently, the court granted Tyler Pipe's motion for summary judgment, concluding that all factors for the executive exemption were satisfied, and no genuine issue of material fact remained.

FLSAOvertime CompensationSummary JudgmentExecutive ExemptionPrimary DutyManagement ResponsibilitiesEmployee ClassificationCollective Class ActionProduction SupervisorsHuman Resources
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hodgson v. BARGE, WAGGONER AND SUMNER, INCORPORATED

This action was brought to enjoin Barge, Waggoner and Sumner, Incorporated from violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding overtime compensation. The central issue was whether ten of the defendant's employees qualified for professional or executive exemptions under the Act. The court determined that the employees, being paid hourly and lacking a predetermined salary, did not meet the stringent exemption requirements. Consequently, the court instructed the plaintiff's attorney to calculate the overtime compensation due to these employees. However, due to the defendant's demonstrated good faith and absence of willful violation, the court declined to impose liquidated damages or grant a permanent injunction.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime PayEmployee ExemptionsSalary BasisExecutive EmployeeProfessional EmployeeAdministrative EmployeeHourly WagesInjunction DenialLiquidated Damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sumrall v. T. E. Mercer Trucking Co.

Plaintiffs, former employees of the defendant's pipe yard and trucking business, sought unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defendant argued that these employees were exempt from FLSA overtime provisions under the Motor Carrier Act, as their duties as "loaders" (specifically hookers and gin truck operators) directly affected the safety of vehicles on the highway, thereby falling under the Interstate Commerce Commission's jurisdiction. The court determined that hookers and gin truck operators did indeed perform duties that directly affected vehicle safety and were thus exempt from FLSA overtime. Consequently, the claims for overtime compensation were denied.

Fair Labor Standards ActMotor Carrier ActOvertime CompensationInterstate Commerce CommissionLoading OperationsEmployee ExemptionSafety of OperationKickersHookersGin Truck Operators
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. National Autotech, Inc.

Jim Roberts, the plaintiff, sued his former employer, National Autotech, claiming entitlement to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). National Autotech argued that Roberts was an exempt executive and/or administrative employee. Roberts was hired as a Service Writer or Manager Trainee, then quickly promoted to Store Manager and later Group Supervisor, before returning to Store Manager. The court examined his duties under the FLSA's "short test" for executive and administrative exemptions. The court found Roberts was an exempt executive employee during his time as Store Manager or Group Supervisor due to his primary duty being management, despite spending significant time on non-managerial tasks. However, during his initial five weeks as a Manager Trainee or Service Writer, he was deemed non-exempt. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationExecutive ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionManager TraineeStore ManagerGroup SupervisorPrimary Duty TestSummary Judgment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 1989

In Re Volpe

This case addresses the objection by NCNB-Texas National Bank to the exemption claimed by Dr. and Mrs. Volpe (Debtors) for their qualified employee profit sharing plan and individual retirement accounts under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. NCNB argued that the relevant Texas Property Code (T.P.C. § 42.0021) was preempted by ERISA and that debtors could only exempt a single account. The court, after an extensive analysis of ERISA's preemption clause and Supreme Court precedents like Mackey, concluded that T.P.C. § 42.0021 is not preempted by ERISA, as its connection to ERISA plans is too remote to be considered regulatory. Furthermore, applying a liberal interpretation of Texas exemption laws, the court determined that a debtor's overall retirement plan, even if held in multiple accounts, is exempt. Therefore, NCNB's objection was overruled, and the debtors' accounts were deemed exempt.

Bankruptcy LawExemption ClaimERISA PreemptionTexas Property CodeRetirement BenefitsProfit Sharing PlanIndividual Retirement AccountsFederal Bankruptcy CodeState Exemption LawSpendthrift Trust
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harper v. Government Employees Insurance

This is a collective action where Plaintiff Candace Harper seeks overtime compensation from her former employer, GEICO, under the FLSA and New York State law, claiming she and other Telephone Claims Representatives (TCRs) were improperly denied overtime. GEICO argued TCRs were exempt administrative employees and moved for summary judgment, while Harper sought partial summary judgment against GEICO's exemption claim. The court denied Harper's motion for partial summary judgment and granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment, finding that TCRs perform administrative duties directly related to GEICO's business operations and exercise sufficient discretion and independent judgment to qualify for the administrative exemption. Consequently, the court did not address GEICO's motion to decertify the collective action.

FLSAOvertime CompensationAdministrative ExemptionSummary JudgmentCollective ActionInsurance IndustryClaims AdjustersDiscretion and Independent JudgmentWage and HourTelephone Claims Representatives
References
28
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cowan v. Treetop Enterprises, Inc.

The core issue is whether unit managers at Treetop's Waffle House restaurants qualify as "bona fide executive employees" exempt from FLSA overtime pay. Plaintiffs argue their primary duty involves cooking and non-managerial tasks, not supervision, despite their job title. The court agreed, finding that managerial duties were significantly shared with district managers and that training focused on being a grill operator. Consequently, the court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs regarding Treetop and William Ezell's liability for FLSA violations. However, James Shaub was dismissed as a defendant due to insufficient ownership interest, and the defendants' good faith defense was partially upheld, limiting damages to a two-year period and precluding liquidated damages.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAOvertime PayExecutive ExemptionPrimary DutyUnit ManagersWaffle HouseRestaurant IndustrySummary JudgmentGood Faith Defense
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 9,513 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