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

Rhodes v. Bedford County, Tenn.

This case involves an action brought by employees of the Bedford County Ambulance Service against Bedford County, Tennessee, alleging violations of Sections 7 and 8 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically regarding minimum wage and overtime provisions. The dispute arose following the Supreme Court's Garcia decision, which made FLSA applicable to state and municipal employees, and subsequent Congressional amendments aimed at easing the transition for local governments. Plaintiffs argued that the county failed to pay proper minimum wage and overtime from April 15, 1986, to June 30, 1986, and that the subsequent change from salaried to hourly pay on July 1, 1986, constituted a scheme to avoid overtime requirements by artificially deflating the regular rate. The court found that the county’s failure to provide proper overtime payments was a continuous violation, thus plaintiffs’ action was not barred by the statute of limitations. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the issue of liability under Section 7 of the FLSA, finding both periods of violation. Liquidated damages were awarded for the initial period, but a question of material fact remained for the later period. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage LawPublic Agency EmploymentMunicipal Government LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionsContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of Limitations FLSAWage and Hour DisputeAntidiscrimination in Employment
References
7
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
Apr 10, 1995

Reich v. Priba Corp.

The Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, initiated a lawsuit against Prive Corporation, Priba Corporation, and Salah Izzedin (collectively Cabaret Royale) alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). Following a bench trial, the court ruled that Priba and Prive constituted an "enterprise" and Izzedin was an "employer" under the FLSA, making them jointly and severally liable. A key finding was that the club's topless entertainers were employees, not independent contractors, and their earnings were tips. The court determined that Priba violated FLSA's minimum wage provisions by not paying entertainers and by deducting "tip out" fees, and both Priba and Prive committed record-keeping violations. The court granted an injunction against future violations and referred the calculation of back wages and other compensation to a special master.

FLSAEnterprise LiabilityEmployer DefinitionIndependent Contractor MisclassificationMinimum Wage ViolationTip PoolingCredit Card Processing FeesUniform ReimbursementRecord-Keeping ViolationsInjunctive Relief
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2015

Cruz v. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc.

Jorge-Cruz ("Plaintiff") sued AAA Carting and Rubbish Removal, Inc. and Pasquale Cartalemi, Jr. ("Defendants") for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL), specifically for unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, and failure to pay spread of hours. Defendants moved to dismiss federal claims under Rule 12 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for minimum wage violation, and alternatively for summary judgment under Rule 56, arguing the FLSA's motor carrier exemption applies to Plaintiff. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted it for the FLSA minimum wage violation claim, finding Plaintiff's average hourly wage exceeded the minimum. The court also denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment without prejudice, citing the need for discovery to determine if Plaintiff's interstate driving activity was a natural, integral, and inseparable part of his duties or if the goods transported were in the flow of interstate commerce.

FLSANYLLOvertime WagesMinimum WageMotor Carrier ExemptionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(c) MotionRule 56 MotionInterstate CommerceWage and Hour Dispute
References
70
Case No. 79-CV-53
Regular Panel Decision

Herman v. Davis Acoustical Corp.

This action stems from a civil contempt proceeding against the defendants for violating the overtime pay and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), originally enjoined by a 1979 Consent Judgment. A special master was appointed to investigate the alleged violations, determine employee status, calculate back wages, and address prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. The special master found a pattern of FLSA violations, concluded that individuals classified as 'independent contractors' were in fact 'employees' under the FLSA, and recommended a fine of $1,318,648.93, plus simple prejudgment interest. The court reviewed numerous objections from both the defendants and the plaintiff, ultimately upholding the special master's findings regarding the violations, employee classification, the admission of evidence, damages for unidentified employees, and the award of prejudgment interest. The court also affirmed the special master's refusal to compound interest daily or award attorney's fees to the plaintiff, and confirmed the authority to order payment schedules. Consequently, the court accepted the special master's report in its entirety and ordered the defendants to pay the specified fine and prejudgment interest.

FLSA violationsovertime payrecord-keeping violationscivil contemptspecial masterback wagesprejudgment interestindependent contractor statusemployee misclassificationcompensatory fines
References
23
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc.

A group of migrant farm workers filed a civil action against Case Farms of Ohio, claiming violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and state laws. The plaintiffs, recruited from Texas to work in Ohio, alleged misrepresentations regarding employment terms, transportation, and housing conditions. The court found Case Farms liable for numerous AWPA violations, including using an unregistered farm labor contractor, failing to provide written disclosures, providing false information, violating working arrangement terms, failing to comply with housing health and safety codes, and failing to ensure vehicle insurance and inspection for the 1996 plaintiffs. Some 1997 plaintiffs also proved violations related to written disclosures and housing occupancy terms. The court awarded statutory and actual damages to different groups of plaintiffs for these violations, while rejecting most FLSA and state law claims due to insufficient evidence or lack of agency.

Migrant workers' rightsAgricultural employmentWorker Protection ActFair Labor Standards ActWage and hour violationsUnregistered labor contractorSubstandard housingUnsafe transportationFalse promisesJoint employer doctrine
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. CITY OF TROY NEW YORK

This case involves 95 Troy, New York police officers suing the City of Troy under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for alleged unpaid minimum wages due to a 'lag' payroll system, transitioning from weekly to bi-weekly payments. Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment, arguing the system violated the FLSA and that the City was collaterally estopped by a prior state court ruling that found a breach of their collective bargaining agreement. The federal court denied the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the FLSA permits permanent payday changes not intended to evade the Act's requirements, and that a breach of a collective bargaining agreement does not automatically constitute an FLSA violation.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAMinimum WagePayroll DisputeBi-weekly PayCollective BargainingCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentStatutory RightsContractual Rights
References
21
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
Showing 1-10 of 7,510 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