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. 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

Lopez v. Overtime 1st Avenue Corp.

This opinion addresses the parties' joint motions for entry of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, for leave to file an interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff Joysel Lopez initiated the suit in 2015, alleging overtime and minimum wage violations under the FLSA and NYLL, which later became a collective action joined by three other plaintiffs. The parties reached a settlement in 2016, but the Court declined to approve it due to concerns about the disproportionate distribution of funds to Lopez and the non-appearance of other plaintiffs. Subsequently, plaintiffs accepted Rule 68 offers of judgment, prompting the Court to examine whether judicial approval is required for such FLSA settlements, concluding that it is. The Court denies both motions, citing the need for judicial review of FLSA settlements, even under Rule 68, to protect plaintiffs from abusive deals and to uphold the FLSA's remedial goals. The Court also denies the request for interlocutory appeal to avoid further delaying the case and risking defendant's ability to pay.

Wage-and-hour disputeFLSANYLLRule 68 offer of judgmentInterlocutory appealJudicial approval of settlementCollective actionSettlement fairnessDistrict CourtSecond Circuit
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L & F DISTRIBUTORS v. Cruz

Justice Hinojosa concurs with the majority on the retaliatory discharge claim but dissents regarding the unpaid overtime compensation claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The dissent examines whether the employee, Cruz, qualified as a "bona fide executive" based on his salary and supervisory duties over warehouse workers and a janitor. Justice Hinojosa concludes that Cruz met the definition of a bona fide executive as per 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 541.1(f), and therefore was not entitled to overtime pay. The justice recommends sustaining L & F's cross-point and rendering a take-nothing judgment on Cruz's claim for overtime compensation.

FLSAovertime paybona fide executiveretaliatory dischargesupervisory dutieswage and houremployment lawexempt employeedepartment managementjudicial dissent
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1998

Ballard v. Community Home Care Referral Service, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning unpaid overtime wages and class action certification. The court affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff, a home health care aide, was not entitled to 1.5 times her regular hourly wage for overtime. This decision was based on the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) companion services exemption, which defines overtime compensation for such roles. Furthermore, the presence of a liquidated damages claim precluded class action relief under CPLR 901 (b).

Overtime WagesHome Health Care AideFLSA ExemptionClass ActionAffirmative DefensesNew York Labor LawWage OrderUnpaid WagesCPLR 90129 USC 207
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2006

Barfield v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation

Plaintiff Anetha Barfield, a nurse working at Bellevue Hospital through referral agencies, sued Bellevue and its principal, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, for violating the FLSA's overtime provisions. The central issue was whether Bellevue qualified as Barfield's "employer" under FLSA, given she was paid by referral agencies. Applying the "economic reality" test from Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., the court found that Bellevue exercised functional control over Barfield, making it a joint employer. The court rejected Bellevue's arguments that Barfield was not entitled to overtime because an agency informed her it wouldn't pay overtime or that she prevented Bellevue from tracking her hours. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to Barfield on liability and awarded both unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages due to defendants' failure to ensure FLSA compliance.

FLSAOvertime PayJoint EmployerEconomic Reality TestSummary JudgmentNursing Referral AgenciesWage and Hour LawLiabilityLiquidated DamagesDistrict Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Conzo v. City of New York

This case is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) brought by 1478 current and former paramedics and EMTs against the New York City Fire Department (FDNY). Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on three claims: compensation for "gap time," back pay for uncompensated pre-shift overtime, and violations of the FLSA's prompt payment requirement for overtime. Defendants also moved for summary judgment, asserting no FLSA violations and seeking cumulative offsets for overpayments. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on all counts, finding factual disputes for pre-shift activities and late payments, and ruling against gap time claims when employment contracts compensate for all non-overtime hours. The defendants' motion was granted in part and denied in part, with the court clarifying that FLSA offsets must be applied within the same work period.

FLSAOvertimeGap TimeWage DisputeSummary JudgmentCollective ActionUncompensated WorkLate PaymentPayroll SystemOffsets
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wong v. New York, Human Resources Administration

Plaintiff Ruth Wong sued the Human Resources Administration of the City of New York (HRA) and its commissioner, George Gross, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime and breach of an employment contract. Wong, a "houseparent" for HRA from 1983-1984, claimed she worked over forty hours weekly without proper compensation. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing exemption from FLSA overtime provisions under National League of Cities v. Usery and the preclusive effect of the 1985 FLSA Amendments. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the FLSA Amendments preclude liability for pre-April 15, 1986 overtime violations for employees not covered by the Secretary of Labor's special enforcement policy, a category which did not include houseparents. Consequently, the court also dismissed the plaintiff's pendent state law contract claim.

FLSAOvertime PayState and Local Government EmployeesFair Labor Standards AmendmentsSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementTraditional Governmental FunctionsPendent JurisdictionNew York City HRAHouseparent
References
14
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

Matter of Kent v. Cuomo

Petitioners, state employees typically ineligible for overtime, challenged a determination by the State Budget Director regarding overtime compensation following Hurricane Sandy. The Budget Director's bulletin authorized overtime for hours worked beyond 47.5 per week, rather than the 40-hour threshold sought by petitioners. Petitioners argued that the Budget Director was statutorily required to compensate for all hours over 40. The Supreme Court partially dismissed their application, leading to this appeal. The appellate court deferred to the Budget Director's interpretation of Civil Service Law § 134 (6), finding the 47.5-hour threshold was not irrational or unreasonable given the agency's expertise and consistent past application. The court also held that employer respondents did not act irrationally in not requesting compensation below the 47.5-hour threshold, as this authority rests solely with the Budget Director.

Overtime CompensationExtreme EmergencyHurricane SandyState EmployeesCivil Service LawStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DiscretionNormal Workweek47.5-Hour ThresholdCPLR Article 78
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 566 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