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

Higueros v. New York State Catholic Health Plan, Inc.

Thelma Higueros, a marketing and sales representative, initiated a putative class-action lawsuit against her former employer, Fidelis Care, Inc., alleging unpaid overtime wages under federal FLSA and New York State Labor Law, and retaliatory termination for complaining about these violations. Defendant Fidelis moved to dismiss the retaliation claims, asserting that informal complaints were not protected by FLSA and that the state law claims lacked specificity. Fidelis also sought dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing its Rule 68 Offer of Judgment mooted the plaintiff's individual claims. The court granted the dismissal of the FLSA retaliation claim, agreeing that informal complaints are not protected. However, it denied the dismissal of the New York Labor Law retaliation claim, finding sufficient specificity. The court also denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the New York Labor Law retaliation claim remained active and a class certification motion was pending.

OvertimeRetaliationFLSANew York Labor LawClass ActionMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionInformal ComplaintsPleading StandardsRule 68 Offer of Judgment
References
23
Case No. docket no. 54
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Bohls Bearing Equipment Co.

Plaintiff Robert D. Martinez, a Hispanic male, initiated claims against his employer, referred to as "Defendants," alleging violations of the Thirteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Martinez contended that the company president, Louis Bohls, subjected him to persistent racial harassment, including daily slurs, and that he faced retaliation for complaining about overtime pay and subsequently filing a wage claim with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on Martinez's Thirteenth Amendment, § 1981, Title VII discrimination and retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, citing either a lack of a legal cause of action or insufficient evidence. However, the Court denied summary judgment on the Plaintiff's Title VII hostile work environment harassment claim and FLSA retaliation claim, determining that genuine issues of material fact remained, particularly regarding the pervasive racial slurs and the circumstances surrounding Martinez's termination. Finally, the Court certified its amended summary judgment order for interlocutory appeal, specifically addressing the complex legal question of whether private settlements of FLSA claims, even with a bona fide dispute as to liability, are permissible, and consequently stayed the entire case pending the outcome of this appeal.

Employment DiscriminationRacial HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationFair Labor Standards ActFLSAOvertime PaySummary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealWage Claim
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mendoza v. Detail Solutions, LLC

This case concerns alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including minimum wage, overtime, and retaliation claims, brought by Esau Torres Mendoza against his former employer, Detail Solutions, LLC, and Carole Austein, executrix of Charles Austein's estate. The court granted summary judgment for Detail Solutions, finding that Mendoza failed to establish FLSA coverage for the employer, either individually or as an enterprise. Furthermore, the court ruled that Mendoza, an undocumented worker, could not recover back pay damages for his retaliation claim based on the precedent set in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board. Mendoza's partial summary judgment motion on FLSA coverage and back pay was largely stricken or denied, and his claim regarding Charles Austein's employer status under FLSA was denied due to insufficient evidence.

FLSA CoverageSummary Judgment MotionWage and Hour DisputeRetaliation ClaimUndocumented Worker RightsBack Pay DamagesInterstate CommerceEnterprise Coverage TestIndividual Coverage TestEconomic Reality Doctrine
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2007

Alvarado v. Shipley Donut Flour & Supply Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs, a group of Mexican immigrants, alleged discrimination, physical assault, financial exploitation, and retaliation by their employer, Shipley Do-Nuts. They filed claims under Title VII, § 1981, FLSA, and for assault and battery under Texas law. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing claims relating to national origin under § 1981, certain retaliation claims, and claims falling outside the statute of limitations for FLSA and assault/battery. However, the court denied summary judgment on hostile work environment, most retaliation, and some assault and battery claims, finding sufficient fact questions for trial.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentFair Labor Standards ActFLSAAssault and BatteryMexican ImmigrantsNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationEmployment Law
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2012

James v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

Plaintiff Joseph C. James, an African-American male, commenced this action against Countrywide Financial Corp. and individual supervisors, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation based on race in violation of Title VII, Section 1981, Section 1983, NYHRL, FLSA, and NYLL. He claimed disparate treatment including demotion, unequal compensation, lack of management support, and sabotage of recruiting efforts. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It dismissed Title VII retaliation and hostile work environment claims, NYHRL claims, Section 1983, FLSA, NYLL, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims. Certain Title VII discrimination claims and specific Section 1981 discrimination and retaliation claims were allowed to proceed.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981Motion to DismissUnequal PayHostile Work EnvironmentDemotionFair Labor Standards Act
References
150
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salazar v. Bowne Realty Associates, L.L.C.

Salomon Salazar sued Bowne Realty Associates, LLC and Ronald J. Swartz, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law for unpaid wages, overtime, and retaliatory behavior. Salazar, initially a construction worker, claimed he was underpaid as a Superintendent and faced retaliation after asserting his rights. The defendants moved to dismiss time-barred claims and claims for wages already covered by an arbitration award. Salazar also moved to amend his complaint to include new retaliation claims based on post-filing conduct, including an allegedly frivolous parking lawsuit, termination, and eviction. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss FLSA claims prior to May 24, 2007, and claims for Superintendent wages already paid through arbitration. The court also granted Salazar's motion to amend the complaint to include the new retaliation claims, finding them plausible despite the temporal gap.

FLSANew York Labor LawWage and HourOvertimeRetaliationMotion to DismissMotion to AmendCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationEmployment Termination
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2013

Boutros v. JTC Painting & Decorating Corp.

This is an Opinion & Order from the Southern District of New York concerning a lawsuit filed by two painters, Kamal Boutros and Samuel Zuniga, against their employer, JTC Painting and Decorating Corporation, and its owner John Caruso. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid overtime, and Zuniga also claimed FLSA retaliation. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FLSA, that Boutros’s FLSA claim was moot due to a Rule 68 offer of judgment, and for the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. The Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded FLSA enterprise coverage and that Boutros's FLSA claim was not moot because the Rule 68 offer did not definitively provide the maximum possible recovery, thereby preserving a live controversy. Consequently, the Court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. A conference was scheduled for case management.

FLSANew York Labor LawUnpaid OvertimeWage and HourRetaliationMotion to DismissRule 68 Offer of JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionEnterprise Coverage
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santana v. Latino Express Restaurants, Inc.

Plaintiff Lucero Santana sued Latino Express Restaurants, Inc. and Tommy Pimental for violations of FLSA, NYLL, WTPA, and NYCHRL, alleging unpaid minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, and gender discrimination and retaliation. The Court granted Santana's motion for default judgment, finding the defendants liable for wage and hour violations, sexual harassment, and retaliation. Santana was awarded unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and WTPA damages. The Court referred the matter to a Magistrate Judge for an inquest into emotional distress damages related to the NYCHRL claims. The Court also addressed the non-cumulative nature of liquidated damages under FLSA and NYLL, but allowed prejudgment interest under NYLL.

Wage and Hour ViolationsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA)New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)Gender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliationDefault JudgmentUnpaid Wages
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meadows v. PLANET AID, INC.

Plaintiff, Bob Meadows, a 64-year-old African-American and Native-American former trucker, sued his ex-employer Planet Aid, Inc., and supervisors Rodney Carter and Jostein Pedersen, alleging age and race discrimination, FLSA and NYSHRL violations, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, retaliation, whistleblower violations, hostile work environment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted dismissal for NYSHRL, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, Title VII retaliation, N.Y. Labor Law § 740 whistleblower, and emotional distress claims. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for age and race discrimination, FLSA, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation claims, allowing them to proceed.

Age DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFair Labor Standards ActNew York State Human Rights LawBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissEmployment LawPleading Standards
References
32
Case No. Dkt.# 63
Regular Panel Decision

Conner v. Celanese, Ltd.

This case involves two plaintiffs, Hazel Conner and Sytheria Tucker, who sued their employer, Celanese, Ltd., alleging breach of employment contract, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for overtime and retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) for Tucker. The dispute arose from a change in shift structure in 1987 from 8-hour to 12-hour shifts, where employees on 12-hour shifts were paid a lower hourly rate, adjusted to maintain annualized wages, which plaintiffs claim was not properly disclosed. The Court denied summary judgment on the breach of contract claim due to factual disputes over wage modification. However, summary judgment was granted for the defendant on the FLSA overtime and retaliation claims, as the 'regular rate' for overtime was the rate actually paid, and alleged actions did not constitute an 'ultimate employment decision.' Summary judgment was also granted for the defendant on Tucker's IIED claim, finding the conduct not extreme and outrageous.

Employment LawBreach of ContractWage DisputeFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime PayFLSA RetaliationSummary JudgmentConstructive DischargeIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)Texas Law
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 1,838 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