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

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

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Araujo v. Tiano's Construction Corp.

Plaintiffs' causes of action against their employer and its surety for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment, based on claims of being paid less than the minimum prevailing wages set pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, were dismissed. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was affirmed without costs. The court ruled that no private right of action exists to enforce contracts requiring payment of federal prevailing wage schedules, citing prior case law, and stated that the plaintiffs’ remedy lies in pending administrative proceedings. A dissenting opinion argued that the precedent was wrongly decided and that workers should be able to sue to recover mandated wages.

Summary JudgmentPrevailing WageDavis-Bacon ActBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentPrivate Right of ActionAdministrative RemediesDissenting OpinionAppellate Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. State

The case concerns a challenge by home care service agencies and a trade association (petitioners) to New York's Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law § 3614-c). This law conditions Medicaid reimbursement for home health care services in the metropolitan New York area on agencies paying home care aides a minimum wage, determined by reference to New York City's Living Wage Law. Petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional due to improper delegation of legislative authority, violation of the "incorporation by reference" clause, and violation of home rule provisions. They also challenged the Department of Health's (DOH) interpretation of "total compensation." The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the respondents (DOH), and the appellate court affirmed, finding no improper delegation, no violation of the incorporation by reference clause, home rule provisions inapplicable as Medicaid is a state concern, and DOH's interpretation of "total compensation" to be rational.

Wage Parity LawHome Health Care ServicesMedicaid ReimbursementConstitutional LawLegislative AuthorityNew York City Living Wage LawHome RuleDue ProcessDepartment of HealthStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

National Restaurant Ass'n v. Commissioner of Labor

This case involves an appeal concerning a minimum wage order for fast-food workers. The Commissioner of Labor, following a wage board's recommendation, implemented a minimum wage increase for fast-food workers in chains with 30 or more national establishments, a decision confirmed by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The petitioner challenged the wage order and the IBA's confirmation on grounds of mootness, separation of powers, and violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The court rejected all arguments, determining the appeal was not moot despite subsequent legislative action, and found the wage order to be within the Commissioner's delegated authority and not discriminatory under the Commerce Clause. Consequently, the court affirmed the determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals, upholding the minimum wage increase for fast-food workers.

Minimum WageFast-Food IndustryWage BoardIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of LaborAppellate ReviewSeparation of PowersDormant Commerce ClauseLabor LawAdministrative Law

References

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

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

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Carver v. State

The petitioner, a former recipient of public assistance, challenged the interception of his lottery winnings by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA). He argued he was entitled to wage protections under the New York State Minimum Wage Act and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for work performed in the Work Experience Program (WEP) as a condition of receiving benefits, claiming his remuneration was below minimum wage. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of his claim under the New York State Minimum Wage Act, as WEP participants are not considered 'employees' under state law. However, the court reversed the dismissal of his FLSA claim, concluding that WEP participants are 'employees' within the meaning of the FLSA based on the 'economic reality' test and persuasive federal court interpretations. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the FLSA cause of action.

Workfare programPublic assistance benefitsMinimum wage lawsFederal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York State Minimum Wage ActWork Experience Program (WEP)Lottery winnings recoupmentCPLR article 78 proceedingEconomic reality testEmployer-employee relationship

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Whittaker v. Central Square Central School District

The claimant appealed the Workers’ Compensation Board's calculation of his average weekly wage following a work-related injury to his right elbow and hand. The Board used a 200 multiplier under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3), which the claimant contended did not accurately reflect his annual salary as a school bus driver working 10 months a year. The court found that applying a 200 multiplier, although a minimum, was erroneous as it did not rationally correspond to the claimant's actual work days and resulted in an average weekly wage that was not fair or reasonable. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case back to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Average Weekly WageWorkers' Compensation Law200 MultiplierAnnual Salary CalculationSchool Bus DriverWork-Related InjuryJudicial ReviewError in CalculationRemittal

References

Showing 1-10 of 1,878 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

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

References

Case No. KP-0431

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 16, 2023

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0431

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Araujo v. Tiano's Construction Corp.

Summary JudgmentPrevailing WageDavis-Bacon ActBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentPrivate Right of ActionAdministrative RemediesDissenting OpinionAppellate Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. State

Wage Parity LawHome Health Care ServicesMedicaid ReimbursementConstitutional LawLegislative AuthorityNew York City Living Wage LawHome RuleDue ProcessDepartment of HealthStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

National Restaurant Ass'n v. Commissioner of Labor

Minimum WageFast-Food IndustryWage BoardIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of LaborAppellate ReviewSeparation of PowersDormant Commerce ClauseLabor LawAdministrative Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 01, 2015

Cruz v. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc.

FLSANYLLOvertime WagesMinimum WageMotor Carrier ExemptionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(c) MotionRule 56 MotionInterstate CommerceWage and Hour Dispute

References

Case No. 23 NY3d 906

Regular Panel Decision

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

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Work Experience Program (WEP)Minimum WagePublic AssistanceWelfare ReformEconomic Reality TestEmployee StatusLottery WinningsRecoupment of BenefitsState Law Preemption

References

Case No. ADJ8072993

Regular

Nov 26, 2012

VIRGINIA PALACIOS vs. MAXIMUM REALTY, AMERICAN CLAIMS

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedEarning CapacityMinimum WageApartment ManagerActual EarningsLegal Minimum WageStatutory Time FramesAdjudication

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Carver v. State

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Whittaker v. Central Square Central School District

Average Weekly WageWorkers' Compensation Law200 MultiplierAnnual Salary CalculationSchool Bus DriverWork-Related InjuryJudicial ReviewError in CalculationRemittal

References

Showing 1-10 of 1,878 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.