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

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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Luttrell

The Chapter 7 Trustee, Ann Mostoller, objected to the Debtor's claim of exemption for $150,000 received under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). The Debtor, widow of a Department of Energy employee, received these benefits due to her husband's occupational illness (lung cancer) as a 'covered employee' under EEOICPA. The Trustee argued that the Tennessee exemption statute (Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111(1)(C)) applied only to the individual suffering the illness, not to a dependent. The court disagreed, finding that the EEOICPA benefits, like social security and veterans' benefits, vest in surviving spouses and fall within the scope of protections intended by the Tennessee General Assembly. Therefore, the court overruled the Trustee's objection, allowing the Debtor to exempt the entire $150,000.

BankruptcyExemptionChapter 7Occupational Illness Compensation Program ActEEOICPAEnergy EmployeesSurvivor BenefitsDisability BenefitsState ExemptionsFederal Exemptions
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dye v. McIntyre Floral Co.

This suit was brought by employees against McIntyre Floral Company, alleging a deficiency in wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The core issue revolves around whether the employees are exempt from the Act's provisions due to their employment in agriculture, specifically in handling "agricultural or horticultural commodities for market." The chancellor initially sustained a demurrer, agreeing that the complainants were exempt. The court examined the Act's definition of "agriculture," which includes the cultivation and harvesting of horticultural commodities and practices incidental to farming, such as preparation for market. The court concluded that the employees' work, involving the receipt, care, and preparation of nursery products for shipment, falls under the "preparation for market" clause of the agricultural exemption, affirming the initial judgment. This construction aligns with the understanding of agriculture's seasonal nature, which includes horticulture.

Fair Labor Standards ActAgricultural ExemptionHorticultural CommoditiesNursery BusinessWage DeficiencyInterstate CommercePreparation for MarketFarm Laborer ExemptionStatutory InterpretationDavidson County
References
3
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
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

Klumb v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System

The case involves a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) board's authority to define 'employee' for pension eligibility. Petitioners, former City of Houston employees transferred to a third-party entity (CCSI), sought retirement benefits or cessation of pension contributions, arguing they were no longer City employees. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained 'members' due to the City's effective control over their new employer. The trial court and court of appeals dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the statutory preclusion of judicial review for HMEPS decisions. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, concluding that the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority and that the petitioners' ultra vires, equal protection, and due course of law claims were invalid as they lacked vested property rights in the pension benefits.

Pension LawStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewUltra ViresSovereign ImmunityEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal EmployeesOutsourcing
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 8,980 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