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
Nov 23, 2015

Mendez v. U.S. Nonwovens Corp.

This case involves allegations by employees against U.S. Nonwovens Corp. and its principals for failing to pay timely wages, overtime, and spread of hours wages in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class action for various causes of action, including unpaid overtime, untimely wages, unpaid spread of hours premium, and breach of oral agreement. The Court denied class certification for claims related to unpaid overtime and untimely wages, finding a lack of commonality and predominance due to individualized proof requirements. However, the Court granted class certification for the claim regarding the failure to pay a spread of hours premium, determining that a common policy of not paying this premium predominated over individual issues. Consequently, a class was certified for non-exempt workers who were not paid the spread of hours premium, and class representatives and counsel were appointed.

Class ActionWage and HourOvertime PaySpread of HoursTimely WagesFLSANYLLRule 23 CertificationEmployment LawClass Certification Denied in part
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almeida v. Aguinaga

Plaintiff Elza Almeida sued defendants Carlos and Christina Aguinaga for overtime and “spread-of-hours” pay under the New York Labor Law, specifically for her work as a live-in domestic service employee from 1990 to December 2005. The Aguinagas moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The court analyzed Almeida's claimed working hours, wages, and the applicable meal and lodging allowances under New York regulations. The court concluded that Almeida's claims for overtime pay from May 24, 2000, through December 2004, and for spread-of-hours pay from November 2001, through December 2004, should be dismissed because her total compensation, including allowances, met or exceeded the legally required amounts. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Almeida’s spread-of-hours claim for the period between May 24, 2000, and June 2001, allowing that specific claim to proceed to trial. Other claims, such as breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, were not addressed in this motion.

Domestic Service EmployeeOvertime PaySpread-of-Hours PayNew York Labor LawMinimum WageMeal and Lodging AllowancesSummary Judgment MotionWage ClaimsEmployment LawWage Order
References
10
Case No. 12 Civ. 633
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2012

Hamadou v. Hess Corp.

Plaintiffs Diallo Hamadou, Muhammad Shahjahan, and Frank Asiedu filed a lawsuit against Hess Corporation, Hess Mart, Inc., Mamadou Gueye, and Phillip Tous, alleging unpaid wages and overtime compensation violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action and an order for defendants to provide contact information for current and former hourly employees. Defendants opposed the certification and moved to strike class allegations concerning 'spread of hours' pay. The court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion, conditionally certifying a class limited to hourly employees in the Hess gas station territories encompassing the Queens and Bronx stations, finding a sufficient factual basis for unlawful timekeeping practices. The defendants' motion to strike class allegations regarding 'spread of hours' pay was denied as premature.

Wage and Hour DisputeFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawOvertime CompensationUnpaid WagesCollective ActionConditional CertificationTimesheet AlterationOff-the-Clock WorkSpread of Hours Pay
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Findlay Industries, Inc.

The Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Findlay Industries Inc. for alleged unpaid contributions related to vacation and holiday pay, seeking back contributions, liquidated damages, and injunctive relief. Findlay Industries Inc. maintained that its collective bargaining agreements with four local unions only required contributions for 'hours worked,' not for vacation or holiday pay. The court found that Findlay had consistently contributed based on 'hours worked' since 1973, and the Fund had knowingly accepted this interpretation for many years. Despite previous audits and demands, the Fund's claims for additional contributions were rejected, and the court ruled that the collective bargaining agreements required contributions only for 'hours worked.' Consequently, all claims by the plaintiff Fund were dismissed on the merits.

Pension Fund DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementHours WorkedVacation PayHoliday PayERISALMRAContract InterpretationEmployer ContributionsTrust Fund
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Jet Blue Airways Corp.

Glenn Edwards initiated a putative class action against Jet Blue Airways Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law, article 19, § 650 et seq., concerning overtime compensation. Edwards claimed that Jet Blue failed to pay him at 1.5 times his regular rate for hours worked beyond 40 that were exchanged with coworkers. Jet Blue sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) § 213 (b) (3) for air carriers, which it argued was incorporated into New York's 12 NYCRR 142-2.2. The court acknowledged the applicability of the FLSA exemption to Edwards due to Jet Blue's status as an air carrier. However, the court ruled that 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 still mandates overtime pay at 1.5 times the basic minimum hourly rate for exempt employees, which in this context means their regular pay rate plus one half times the New York State minimum wage. Finding that Edwards' complaint sufficiently alleged inadequate overtime compensation under New York law based on this calculation, the court denied Jet Blue's motion to dismiss.

Class actionOvertime payLabor LawFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Railway Labor Act (RLA)Minimum wageAir carrier exemptionWage and hour disputeMotion to dismissNew York employment law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1995

In re the Claim of Solano

The claimant voluntarily left their part-time employment as a telephone collector for a collection agency. Reasons cited for leaving included dissatisfaction with part-time status, hourly pay, the stressful nature of the job, a denied $5 bonus, and a one-day suspension for inappropriate language. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because they voluntarily left without good cause. The court affirmed this decision, noting that dissatisfaction with hours, pay, general working conditions, or inability to get along with a supervisor does not constitute good cause for leaving employment. The court also deferred to the Board's resolution of credibility issues.

Unemployment benefitsVoluntary quitGood causeJob dissatisfactionSupervisor conflictDisqualificationAppeal Board decisionAppellate DivisionCredibility determinationWorking conditions
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pik Quan Leong v. 127 Glen Head Inc.

The plaintiff, Pik Quan Leong, initiated an action against 127 Glen Head Inc. (Kiraku Japanese Restaurant) and its owner, Jin Hang Zheng, alleging violations of Title VII, FLSA, New York Executive Law, and other state and city labor regulations, primarily focusing on unpaid overtime wages. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for her overtime pay claims. The court denied the plaintiff's motion, citing the presence of genuine issues of material fact regarding the actual hours worked, the typical pay rate, the amount of overtime hours, and the compensation received for overtime. The court also noted inconsistencies in the plaintiff's complaint and affidavit, as well as issues with missing time card records, contributing to the denial.

Overtime PaySummary Judgment MotionFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeEmployment LitigationMaterial FactsRecordkeeping InconsistenciesDistrict CourtCashier Employment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of La Pietra v. County of Suffolk

The claimant, a licensed practical nurse, sustained an injury in 1989 and was later classified with a permanent partial disability, receiving workers' compensation benefits for reduced earnings. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled that her reduced earnings were not causally related to her disability, primarily citing her current employment in Tennessee at what it inferred was a lower pay scale and fewer hours. The appellate court found that the Board failed to adequately explain its ruling and did not sufficiently consider all factors. Specifically, the court noted the absence of evidence comparing pay scales between New York and Tennessee, and the Board's failure to account for the claimant working fewer hours in Tennessee without determining if this reduction was self-imposed or unrelated to her disability. The court concluded there was insufficient support for the Board's finding that reduced earnings were solely due to economic conditions unrelated to the disability, thereby reversing the decision and remitting the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsCausationEconomic ConditionsRemittalAppellate ReviewNew YorkLPNWage Loss
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2011

Santillan v. Henao

Plaintiff Juan Jose Santillan sought unpaid overtime wages and spread of hours pay from defendants Custom Stainless Steel Corp. and Walter Henao under the FLSA and New York Labor Law. Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) proposing a default judgment in the total amount of $60,193.42, comprising damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Senior District Judge Block adopted the R&R without de novo review, citing the defendants' failure to object. The final judgment includes $25,213.21 in overtime wages, $3,127.90 in spread of hours pay, and a total of $15,907.83 in liquidated damages, in addition to prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, finding the defendants liable for violating wage and record-keeping provisions.

Overtime WagesFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawDefault JudgmentSpread of Hours PayLiquidated DamagesPrejudgment InterestAttorney's FeesRecord-Keeping ViolationsWage Claims
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Harvest Bakery Inc.

This case involves allegations by plaintiffs Maximino Rivera, Miguel Roldan, and Oscar Quintanilla against Harvest Bakery, Inc., Robert Marconti, and Jose Gonzalez. The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to pay overtime and spread of hours wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The core of the dispute revolves around whether the defendants had a common policy of not paying these wages to their production workers. The Court addresses the defendants' arguments regarding the prematurity and mootness of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, ultimately rejecting them. The Court then proceeds to grant the plaintiffs' motion, certifying a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees who worked for Harvest Bakery in New York, and appoints class counsel, finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, and superiority) have been met.

Wage and Hour LawOvertime PaySpread of Hours WagesClass Action CertificationRule 23(b)(3)FLSA ViolationNYLL ViolationCommonalityTypicalityNumerosity
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 2,015 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