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

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

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
Case No. 11 CIV. 0377(CM)
Regular Panel Decision

Pippins v. KPMG LLP

This case concerns a decision granting Defendant KPMG LLP's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims with prejudice and their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs, current and former Audit Associates at KPMG, alleged that KPMG violated overtime pay requirements by classifying them as exempt. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, determined that Audit Associates qualify as "learned professionals" under the FLSA exemption. This conclusion was based on their specialized academic training, customary CPA-eligibility, and the requirement for them to exercise discretion and judgment in performing audit procedures, despite some routine tasks and supervision. The court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that their work was purely rote and found their duties essential to the accounting profession, thus exempting them from FLSA overtime requirements.

FLSANew York Labor LawLearned Professional ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionAudit AssociatesKPMGOvertime PaySummary JudgmentAccounting StandardsCPA Eligibility
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farley v. Metro North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiffs Edward Farley and Thomas Finn, representing the United Transportation Union (UTU) and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) respectively, sued Metro-North Commuter Railroad for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They argued that Metro-North, after receiving an exemption from Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) regulations, became subject to FLSA's overtime requirements. Metro-North contended it remained exempt under FLSA § 13(b)(2), which applies to common carriers by rail subject to ICA provisions, despite its administrative exemption. The court interpreted the legislative intent of both acts, concluding that the FLSA exemption was to prevent conflict with existing federal railroad regulations and that Metro-North remained functionally 'subject to the provisions' of the ICA due to continued ICC oversight and the revocability of its exemption. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to Metro-North, denying the plaintiffs' claims for overtime and liquidated damages.

FLSA exemptionICA exemptionrailroad employeesovertime compensationstatutory interpretationsummary judgmentcommon carrierlabor unionswage and hourfederal regulation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Coil Tubing Services, L.L.C.

The case involves a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) dispute where current and former employees (Bellwether Plaintiffs) sued Coil Tubing Services, L.L.C. (CTS) for unpaid overtime. CTS claimed various FLSA exemptions, including the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption. The court, presided over by District Judge Nancy F. Atlas, issued a memorandum and order on cross-motions for summary judgment, granting them in part and denying in part. Key rulings included applying the MCA exemption to most Field Service Employees in land projects for claims between November 2006 and June 2008. The court also found Plaintiff Henderson exempt under Executive and Highly Compensated Employee provisions. However, summary judgment was denied regarding offshore employees in the Broussard District under the MCA, claims post-June 5, 2008 (under the TCA), and Plaintiff Sheikh's Professional Exemption. The court determined any FLSA violations were not willful, imposing a two-year statute of limitations, and deferred on liquidated damages.

FLSA OvertimeMotor Carrier Act ExemptionSummary JudgmentExecutive ExemptionHighly Compensated Employee ExemptionProfessional ExemptionWillful FLSA ViolationStatute of LimitationsOilfield ServicesCommercial Vehicle Safety
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Villegas v. El Paso Independent School District

Plaintiffs, athletic trainers employed by El Paso Independent School District, sued for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and for breach of contract and declaratory relief under Texas law. They alleged being required to work beyond contracted days and on weekends/holidays without additional compensation. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the Plaintiffs were exempt employees under the 'learned professional' exemption of the FLSA. The Court, presided over by District Judge Cardone, found that athletic trainers in a Texas school district are exempt employees under the FLSA, thus dismissing the federal FLSA claims. Subsequently, the Court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

FLSAOvertime CompensationExempt EmployeeLearned Professional ExemptionMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionAthletic TrainersTexas LawBreach of Contract
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2016

Padilla v. Sheldon Rabin, M.D., P.C.

Raul Padilla, an ophthalmic technician, filed a collective action against his employer, Sheldon Rabin, M.D., P.C., and its owner, Dr. Sheldon Rabin, seeking retroactive overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The central issue was whether Padilla was an 'exempt' salaried professional employee. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court found that Padilla did not meet the 'salary basis' test required for the FLSA's learned professional exemption, thus granting his motion for summary judgment on the FLSA claim regarding this exemption. However, issues regarding the 'primary duty' test for the NYLL exemption, statute of limitations (willfulness), and liquidated damages were deemed triable issues for a jury.

FLSANYLLOvertime PayExempt EmployeeLearned Professional ExemptionSalary Basis TestPrimary Duty TestSummary JudgmentWillfulnessLiquidated Damages
References
28
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
Apr 05, 2004

Schwind v. EW & Associates, Inc.

Plaintiff John Schwind brought an action against EW & Associates, Inc. (EWA) and Elaine Wirth, alleging denied overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law, breach of contract, and ERISA-COBRA violations. Schwind claimed he was improperly denied overtime during periods as both an independent contractor and an employee. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Schwind was an exempt employee. The court determined Schwind was an "employee" under the FLSA's economic reality test for all relevant periods. Summary judgment was granted for the defendants regarding the FLSA overtime claim for the period of January 1, 2001, through June 24, 2002, finding Schwind exempt under the administrative exemption. However, summary judgment was denied for the "outside salesman" exemption due to insufficient employer records and for all other claims, as discovery had been limited.

FLSAOvertime PayIndependent Contractor ClassificationEmployee ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawERISACOBRABreach of Contract
References
42
Case No. 7:10-CV-1132
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2010

Gorey v. MANHEIM SERVICES CORPORATION

This is a conditionally certified Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action where Plaintiff Carol Gorey and other opt-in plaintiffs, identified as "outside sales representatives" for Manheim auto auctions, sued for alleged improper classification as overtime-exempt employees under FLSA and New York state law. Manheim cross-moved, asserting the plaintiffs were properly classified as exempt due to outside sales or administrative duties. The court found that Manheim failed to prove the applicability of either the outside salesmen or administrative employee exemptions, thereby granting in part and denying in part both parties' motions. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on their FLSA and New York labor and wage claims. Furthermore, the court limited the collective action to thirty-two opt-in plaintiffs, applying a two-year statute of limitations for ordinary FLSA violations, and specified Manheim Remarketing, Inc., and Manheim Investments, Inc. as the proper defendants, granting summary judgment to other corporate parents.

FLSAOvertime PayExemptionsOutside Salesman ExemptionAdministrative Employee ExemptionCollective ActionSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawStatute of LimitationsWillful Violation
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,078 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