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

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
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. 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. 16,680; 78-CI-18460
Regular Panel Decision

City of San Antonio v. Aguilar

This case addresses an appeal concerning a municipal labor contract dispute, where Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) of the San Antonio Fire Department sought overtime back pay. The central legal question involved the applicability and interpretation of the State Civil Service Act, specifically regarding the standard work week for fire department employees whose duties do not include firefighting. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, which had awarded overtime compensation to the EMTs for a period from November 1974 to July 1977. The decision heavily relied on the doctrine of stare decisis, citing the precedent set by the companion case of Kierstead v. City of San Antonio. The court dismissed the City's arguments regarding the doctrine of ejusdem generis and the method of overtime calculation, affirming that these issues were consistent with prior judicial interpretations.

Municipal EmploymentOvertime CompensationPublic Safety PersonnelStatutory InterpretationPreclusion DoctrinesStare DecisisRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelCollective Bargaining AgreementsCivil Service Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hesseltine v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

The case involves three plaintiffs, Donald Hesseltine, Charles Dwayne Parrish, and David Day, who sued their employer, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs alleged that Goodyear's mandatory person-to-person shift relief policy and other instances of working beyond scheduled hours without pay constituted uncompensated overtime. The District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Goodyear's motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that the claimed ten to fifteen minutes of uncompensated shift relief time was de minimis as a matter of law and thus not compensable. Furthermore, any claims for early or late relief were dismissed due to lack of definite evidence and because such arrangements were for employee benefit rather than employer requirement. The court also noted that Goodyear's existing premium payments would offset any potential overtime liability.

FLSAOvertime CompensationSummary JudgmentDe Minimis DoctrinePortal-to-Portal ActShift ReliefEmployment LawWage and HourPremium PayWaiver
References
98
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hodgson v. BARGE, WAGGONER AND SUMNER, INCORPORATED

This action was brought to enjoin Barge, Waggoner and Sumner, Incorporated from violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding overtime compensation. The central issue was whether ten of the defendant's employees qualified for professional or executive exemptions under the Act. The court determined that the employees, being paid hourly and lacking a predetermined salary, did not meet the stringent exemption requirements. Consequently, the court instructed the plaintiff's attorney to calculate the overtime compensation due to these employees. However, due to the defendant's demonstrated good faith and absence of willful violation, the court declined to impose liquidated damages or grant a permanent injunction.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime PayEmployee ExemptionsSalary BasisExecutive EmployeeProfessional EmployeeAdministrative EmployeeHourly WagesInjunction DenialLiquidated Damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aldrich v. Skillern & Sons, Inc.

Nine pharmacists, Pringle, Bourgeois, LaMont, McGinnis, Borel, Doyle, Piazza, Anderson and Kerby, sought a mandatory injunction for reinstatement to their former positions. They claimed their employer, the Defendant, unlawfully terminated them for complaining about overtime compensation, violating 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant countered that terminations stemmed from the pharmacists' union organizing activities. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits or suffering irreparable harm, finding the terminations were more likely linked to union activities rather than retaliation for overtime claims.

Preliminary InjunctionFair Labor Standards ActOvertime PayWrongful TerminationLabor Union ActivitiesReinstatementIrreparable InjuryBurden of ProofInjunctive ReliefFederal Court
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between Cortland County & CSEA, Inc.

Petitioners, Cortland County Sheriff and Cortland County, were parties to a collective bargaining agreement with an unnamed respondent union. A correction officer, Lawrence Jackson, was placed on family and medical leave due to a work restriction related to plantar fasciitis, preventing him from working mandatory overtime. The respondent union filed a grievance alleging a violation of the CBA, which petitioners denied, leading the respondent to demand arbitration. Petitioners then sought to permanently stay arbitration, but the Supreme Court denied their application and compelled arbitration. On appeal, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the dispute arbitrable as it related to the CBA's provisions on work schedules, overtime, and light-duty assignments, and no public policy considerations prohibited arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork RestrictionMandatory OvertimeDisability BenefitsPlantar FasciitisGrievanceStay of ArbitrationAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
15
Case No. 72-H-1169 and 72-H-1170
Regular Panel Decision

Merrill v. Exxon Corporation

This Memorandum and Opinion addresses whether newly hired employee-trainees are entitled to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for time spent in mandatory classroom instruction after regular working hours. The plaintiffs, employees of Exxon Corporation in two consolidated civil actions, participated in an apprenticeship program requiring off-site classroom attendance, for which their collective bargaining agreement stipulated no compensation. The District Court examined the Portal-to-Portal Act (29 U.S.C. § 254) and federal labor regulations, particularly 29 C.F.R. § 785.32, which allows for the exclusion of such training time from compensable hours under specific conditions. The Court determined that classroom study, despite being required, was not an "integral and indispensable part of the principal activity" of employment, and thus not compensable under the FLSA. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, ruling against the plaintiffs' claim for overtime compensation for the training hours.

FLSAOvertime CompensationEmployee TraineesApprenticeship ProgramPortal-to-Portal ActSummary JudgmentWage and Hour RegulationsCollective Bargaining AgreementIntegral and Indispensable TestExxon Corporation
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,265 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