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. KP-0431
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0431

This opinion addresses the applicability of Texas's minimum wage laws to minor league baseball players. It confirms that minor league baseball players are "covered by" the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which subsequently exempts them from the minimum wage requirements of Texas Labor Code chapter 62, pursuant to section 62.151. The opinion further considers whether a state-law exemption for "amusement or recreational establishments" under Labor Code section 62.158 would apply. It notes that this is a fact-bound inquiry, but suggests that a six-month baseball season could meet the seasonality requirement for this exemption.

Minimum Wage LawsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Minor League BaseballTexas Labor CodeExemptionsAmusement or Recreational EstablishmentSave America’s Pastime Act (SAPA)Interstate CommerceEmployment LawAttorney General Opinion
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Restaurant Ass'n v. Commissioner of Labor

This case involved a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by an employer association to challenge a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The IBA had confirmed a minimum wage order from the Commissioner of Labor, which increased the cash wage for food service workers. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner lacked authority to set a wage lower than legislatively mandated and was constrained in considering other factors. The court converted the proceeding to a direct appeal and affirmed the IBA's determination, concluding that Labor Law § 655 (5) prohibits setting a cash wage less than that specified in Labor Law § 652 (4). The court found the petitioner's arguments without merit.

Minimum WageFood Service WorkersLabor Law InterpretationStatutory AuthorityWage Board ReviewIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of LaborCPLR Article 78 ConversionJudicial Review of Agency ActionEmployer Association Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goff v. Whitehall Central School District

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement between the Whitehall Central School District and its employees. The dispute centers on whether "snow days" should be included in the calculation of guaranteed minimum payment days for part-time bus drivers (180 days) and cafeteria employees (170 days), even if the employees have already met those minimums through other workdays. The school district denied a grievance, arguing that snow days only count if needed to reach the minimum. Special Term initially reversed the board's decision, asserting that snow days should always be included. However, this appellate court reversed Special Term's judgment, ruling that the contract's intent was to count snow days only when necessary to fulfill the assured minimum number of payment days, and not to provide additional payment once the minimum was achieved. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSnow DaysEmployment ContractWage DisputeSchool DistrictArticle 78 ProceedingContract InterpretationGrievanceAppellate ReviewEmployee Rights
References
1
Case No. ADJ4543302 (LBO 0384577) ADJ4573415 (LBO 0384579)
Regular
Oct 31, 2008

SANDRA AREBALO vs. MELISSA & ARTUR SPOKOJNY, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES c/o ALL STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, reversing a prior ruling. The Board found that the applicant's specific injury claim was barred by Labor Code section 3352(h) because she did not meet the minimum hours or earnings threshold for an employee. Additionally, the Board determined that the applicant's cumulative trauma claim was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as it was filed after notice of termination. Consequently, the applicant will take nothing from her claims.

Labor Code Section 3352(h)Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defensespecific injurycumulative traumahousekeeperbabysitterdate of injurydefinition of employeePetition for Reconsideration
References
2
Case No. 03 Civ. 1675
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2004

Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC

The case involves plaintiff Jennifer Arculeo's claims of sexual harassment and employment discrimination against On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC and Sanford Pankin d/b/a Crystal Hills, LLC, under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing they did not meet Title VII's fifteen-employee threshold. The court addressed whether employees of "joint employers" could be aggregated to satisfy this requirement. Following prior Southern District decisions, the court ruled against aggregation, upholding that each entity must independently meet the employee minimum. Consequently, the plaintiff's Title VII claims were dismissed with prejudice, and her NYHRL claims were dismissed without prejudice, opting not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Title VIIHuman Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentSummary Judgment MotionJoint Employer DoctrineEmployee ThresholdFederal JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionDistrict Court Decision
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Hawker Beechcraft, Inc.

The Debtors sought court approval for their Key Employee Incentive Plan (KEIP), designed to provide bonuses to eight senior leadership team members (insiders). While a related Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP) was approved, the Court reserved decision on the KEIP. The plan offered substantial bonuses based on the consummation of either a Standalone Plan or a Third-Party Transaction, with minimum targets often aligning with business plan projections. The Court ultimately denied the KEIP, concluding that its low thresholds for bonus attainment made it function as a disguised retention plan rather than a true incentive program. This was found to violate the rigorous standards for insider retention under Section 503(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, which aims to prevent executives from receiving bonuses merely for remaining with a company during bankruptcy. The Debtors failed to demonstrate that the plan's goals were challenging enough to qualify it as a legitimate incentive scheme.

BankruptcyKEIPKERPInsider CompensationRetention PlanIncentive PlanSection 503(c)(1)Chapter 11Corporate RestructuringCreditors' Rights
References
7
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. 23 NY3d 906
Regular Panel Decision

The Matter of Walter E. Carver v. State of New York

Petitioner Carver, a 69-year-old Vietnam War veteran, participated in the City of New York's Work Experience Program (WEP) from 1993 to 2000, performing tasks like sorting mail and sweeping floors in exchange for public assistance and food stamps. In 2007, after winning $10,000 in the New York State Lottery, the State, through OTDA, recouped $5,000 under Social Services Law § 131-r (1) to reimburse itself for past public assistance benefits. Carver initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging this recoupment violated his rights under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Minimum Wage Act, arguing that the recoupment effectively reduced his compensation below minimum wage, as he was an "employee" under the FLSA. The Supreme Court initially dismissed his claim, but the Appellate Division reinstated the FLSA cause of action, applying the "economic reality test" and concluding that WEP participants are FLSA employees. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the City should be considered Carver's employer under the FLSA's "economic reality test" due to factors like control over work, supervision, and maintenance of records, and that WEP workers are entitled to minimum wage protections, thus preventing the State from retroactively depriving Carver of minimum wage through benefit recoupment.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Work Experience Program (WEP)Minimum WagePublic AssistanceWelfare ReformEconomic Reality TestEmployee StatusLottery WinningsRecoupment of BenefitsState Law Preemption
References
18
Case No. ADJ8072993
Regular
Nov 26, 2012

VIRGINIA PALACIOS vs. MAXIMUM REALTY, AMERICAN CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the applicant's earning capacity determination. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) found the applicant's earning capacity based on actual wages, including rent-free housing as compensation, not solely on an hourly minimum wage calculation. The WCJ emphasized that earning capacity considers various factors like age, skill, and employment opportunities, not just hours worked at minimum wage. The Board noted that minimum wage issues should be addressed in a different forum and that such adjudication could potentially lead to reopening this case within statutory timeframes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedEarning CapacityMinimum WageApartment ManagerActual EarningsLegal Minimum WageStatutory Time FramesAdjudication
References
4
Case No. Docket No. 10
Regular Panel Decision

Zhong v. August August Corp.

Plaintiff Jian Zhong filed a class action against defendant August August Corp. alleging denial of overtime compensation and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Minimum Wage Act (NYMWA). Defendant August filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the FLSA overtime claims and related state law claims, but denied it in part, allowing the FLSA minimum wage claims and related state law claims to proceed. Plaintiff Zhong was granted leave to amend the complaint to address the deficiencies in the dismissed claims.

FLSANYMWAWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage ViolationMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) MotionLeave to AmendClass Action PotentialSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 616 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