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

Ransom v. M. Patel Enters., Inc.

This legal order addresses cross-motions for partial summary judgment in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. Plaintiffs allege M. Patel Enterprises, Inc. failed to pay them overtime, and the central dispute revolves around the proper methodology for calculating overtime damages for salaried employees with fluctuating hours. Plaintiffs argue for a regular rate based on a 40-hour workweek, while Defendants advocate for the "fluctuating workweek method" (FWW). The Court meticulously examines relevant Supreme Court precedents (Missel, Belo) and other circuit decisions, emphasizing that the determination of an employee's regular rate is a fact-dependent inquiry requiring an understanding of the parties' intentions. Ultimately, finding the facts insufficiently developed and in dispute, the Court denies both motions for partial summary judgment, reserving the damage calculation methodology question for decision after trial.

FLSAOvertime CompensationWage DisputeEmployment LitigationSummary JudgmentCollective ActionRegular RateFluctuating WorkweekStatutory InterpretationJudicial Precedent
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Texas EZPawn Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation

This General Order addresses Defendant Texas EZPawn, L.P.'s motion for partial summary judgment concerning the calculation of damages in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) cases. Plaintiffs, former assistant store managers, allege they were improperly classified as exempt employees and denied overtime compensation. EZPawn argued for the application of the fluctuating workweek method (29 C.F.R. § 778.114) for damage calculation, citing *Blackmon v. Brookshire Grocery Company*. Plaintiffs countered that EZPawn waived this argument, the method is inapplicable, and fact issues remain. The Court denies EZPawn's motion, concluding that the fluctuating workweek method is inappropriate for misclassification cases as it is inconsistent with the remedial purposes of the FLSA, particularly the time and one-half compensation requirement for overtime, and creates adverse incentives for employers. The Court also declines to follow the Fifth Circuit precedent in *Blackmon*, deeming its reasoning flawed.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationEmployee MisclassificationFluctuating Workweek MethodSummary JudgmentDamages CalculationFederal Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeStatutory InterpretationCircuit Precedent
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramos v. Telgian Corp.

Plaintiffs sued Telgian Corporation for unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours compensation under FLSA and NYLL, challenging the defendant's Fluctuating Workweek (FWW) overtime calculation method. The court denied both parties' summary judgment motions on the FLSA and NYLL claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the fixed weekly salary and mutual understanding elements of the FWW scheme. It ruled that plaintiffs' work hours fluctuated as required by FWW, and Telgian's overtime calculation, despite a technical deviation, resulted in overpayment, preventing a finding of willfulness or actual injury. The court granted defendant's summary judgment motion on the spread-of-hours claim, concluding that this compensation only applies to minimum wage earners. The case will proceed to trial to determine whether plaintiffs received a fixed salary regardless of hours and if there was a clear mutual understanding of the FWW compensation.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawOvertime CompensationFluctuating Workweek MethodSummary JudgmentUnpaid WagesSpread-of-Hours PayMinimum WageEmployer LiabilityWage and Hour Dispute
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cash v. Conn Appliances, Inc.

Plaintiffs (Debra Cash et al.) sued Conn Appliances, Inc., and its subsidiaries, alleging improper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Defendants moved for summary judgment on overtime calculation, limitations, and damages, while plaintiffs sought to proceed as a FLSA collective action. The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion regarding the calculation of overtime compensation, finding that Conn Appliances' use of the fluctuating workweek method was permissible. Consequently, the defendants' motion on limitations and damages was deemed moot. The plaintiffs' motion for a FLSA collective action was denied to the extent it relied on arguments opposing summary judgment, with a decision deferred on the inclusion of bonuses and incentives in regular rate computations.

FLSAOvertime CompensationSummary JudgmentCollective ActionFluctuating Workweek MethodMinimum Wage ViolationsWage and Hour DivisionSalary Basis TestGood Faith DefenseLiquidated Damages
References
90
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wills v. Radioshack Corp.

Plaintiff Jaime Wills initiated a putative class action against RadioShack Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law regarding overtime pay calculation. Wills contended that RadioShack's practice of paying performance-based bonuses to its store managers rendered its use of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Fluctuating Workweek (FWW) method unlawful, requiring instead a higher 'time-and-a-half' rate. RadioShack moved to dismiss, asserting its compliance with NYLL, which aligns with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court determined that performance-based bonuses were compatible with the FWW method and that a 2011 DOL Final Ruling did not alter this interpretation. Consequently, the Court granted RadioShack's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Fluctuating WorkweekOvertime PayPerformance BonusesNew York Labor LawFair Labor Standards ActClass ActionMotion to DismissCollateral EstoppelWage and Hour DisputeEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roche v. S-3 Pump Service, Inc.

Plaintiffs initiated a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), asserting they were misclassified as exempt employees and denied proper overtime compensation. The defendants, S-3 Pump Service, Inc. and its owners Malcolm and Linda Sneed, raised several defenses, including the applicability of the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption and the use of the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method for overtime calculation. The court ruled that the MCA exemption did not apply, siding with the plaintiffs, and determined that Malcolm H. Sneed qualified as an employer under the FLSA due to his operational control. Conversely, the court found that the FWW half-time multiplier was the appropriate method for calculating overtime, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument against it, and concluded that Linda Sneed was not an employer under the FLSA. This resulted in a mixed outcome on the parties' respective motions for partial summary judgment.

FLSAMotor Carrier Act ExemptionFluctuating WorkweekOvertime PayEmployer StatusSummary JudgmentCollective ActionOil and Gas IndustryInterstate CommerceWage and Hour
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United East & West Oil Co. v. Dyer

E. A. Dyer, an employee of United East & West Oil Company, sued for personal injuries sustained in a gas explosion at a lease-house where he lived and worked. Dyer claimed the explosion was due to the defendant's negligence in providing fluctuating gas pressure and failing to equip the gas line with a proper odorizing device. The defendant contended that Dyer was intoxicated, not in the course of his employment, and that a landlord-tenant relationship existed regarding the house, thus negating their duty to provide a safe environment. The jury found that Dyer was acting in the course of his employment, that the defendant's negligence regarding fluctuating gas pressure and the lack of a distinctive odor in the gas supply were proximate causes of the injuries, and that the defendant was not a subscriber under the Workmen’s Compensation Act covering Dyer. The judgment for Dyer was affirmed on appeal.

Gas ExplosionWorkplace InjuryNegligenceSafe Place to WorkEmployer LiabilityLandlord-Tenant RelationshipProximate CauseJury FindingsWorker's Compensation Non-SubscriberGas Pressure Fluctuation
References
6
Case No. ADJ8791268
Regular
Feb 13, 2014

KRZYSZTOF GALBAS vs. TURNER ELECTRIC, INC.; EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. The defendant argued the WCJ erred in determining the applicant's Average Weekly Earnings (AWE) and finding temporary total disability (TTD). The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant's testimony credible regarding a 40-hour workweek at $31/hour, resulting in an AWE of $1,240 and a TTD rate of $826.67. The Board also deferred to the WCJ's credibility findings and upheld the finding of TTD based on the primary treating physician's opinion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Petition for RemovalApplicant's AWEApplicant TTDSmales v. WCABPrimary Treating PhysicianTTD
References
2
Case No. ADJ6743994
Regular
Jan 24, 2011

STANLEY HOLDER vs. COUNTY OF NEVADA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration and denied the defendant's. The WCAB found the applicant's heart condition to be industrially caused based on the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.5, overriding the AME's fluctuating opinion. Permanent disability was increased from 4% to 20% and apportionment was disallowed under Labor Code section 4663(e). Finally, the defendant was denied a 15% reduction in permanent disability payments under Labor Code section 4658 because they failed to strictly prove an offer of regular work in the statutorily prescribed form and manner.

Industrial injuryDeputy SheriffCirculatory systemHeart diseasePermanent disabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3212.5Heart trouble presumption
References
6
Case No. ADJ9664433
Regular
Jan 27, 2020

DANA GRACE vs. PANINO SANTA YNEZ, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for permanent total disability due to an industrial injury sustained by Dana Grace as a server. Both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration of the initial finding regarding applicant's average weekly earnings. The Board granted both petitions, amending the decision to establish applicant's average weekly wage at $553.50, based on a 40-hour workweek at $11.50 per hour plus a meal allowance. This revised wage establishes a permanent total disability indemnity rate of $369.00 per week, before cost of living adjustments.

Average Weekly EarningsEarning CapacityPermanent Total DisabilityReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardIndustrial InjuryWCJPetitions for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4659(c)Evidence Code Section 1401(a)
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 24 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