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

Rhodes v. Bedford County, Tenn.

This case involves an action brought by employees of the Bedford County Ambulance Service against Bedford County, Tennessee, alleging violations of Sections 7 and 8 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically regarding minimum wage and overtime provisions. The dispute arose following the Supreme Court's Garcia decision, which made FLSA applicable to state and municipal employees, and subsequent Congressional amendments aimed at easing the transition for local governments. Plaintiffs argued that the county failed to pay proper minimum wage and overtime from April 15, 1986, to June 30, 1986, and that the subsequent change from salaried to hourly pay on July 1, 1986, constituted a scheme to avoid overtime requirements by artificially deflating the regular rate. The court found that the county’s failure to provide proper overtime payments was a continuous violation, thus plaintiffs’ action was not barred by the statute of limitations. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the issue of liability under Section 7 of the FLSA, finding both periods of violation. Liquidated damages were awarded for the initial period, but a question of material fact remained for the later period. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage LawPublic Agency EmploymentMunicipal Government LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionsContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of Limitations FLSAWage and Hour DisputeAntidiscrimination in Employment
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. 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
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aviles v. Kunkle

The case involves claims by Texas migrant workers (Plaintiffs: Aviles, Arellano, Hernandez-Ramirez families) against Donald and Richard Kunkle and Kunkle Farms (Defendants) under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The trial addressed the family business exemption under AWPA, which was denied for the Kunkles due to the involvement of a third-party labor contractor, Carlos Felix. The court also determined that the pickle harvesters were employees, not independent contractors, based on an "economic reality" test considering control, investment, profit/loss opportunity, skill, and permanency. The Defendants were found liable for intentional violations of AWPA's information and recordkeeping requirements (29 U.S.C. § 1821(a), (b), (c), (d)), with varying damages awarded per violation. However, claims of working arrangement violations and retaliation against the Defendants, including Carlos Felix, were denied. Additionally, Defendants Kunkle were found liable for failing to pay minimum wages under the FLSA during the 1983 pickle and tomato harvests. Due to inadequate record-keeping and lack of good faith, liquidated damages equal to the unpaid minimum wages were also imposed. The court calculated specific unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages for each plaintiff family.

Migrant WorkersAgricultural LaborAWPA ViolationsFLSA ViolationsMinimum WageUnpaid WagesLiquidated DamagesEconomic Reality TestEmployee StatusIndependent Contractor
References
39
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

Lai Chan v. Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc.

This is a class action suit where plaintiffs, current and former employees, allege violations of the Labor Law for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread of hours wages, and failure to comply with proper notification requirements. They also assert third-party beneficiary claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, arguing the defendant failed to pay them according to the Home Care Worker Wage Parity Act and New York City’s Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act, as required under the defendant's contracts with government agencies. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint or compel arbitration, arguing preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act and the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and good faith reliance on administrative opinions. The court denied the defendant's motion in its entirety, finding the claims not preempted and adequately stated.

Labor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PaySpread of Hours PayWage Parity ActFair Wages for New Yorkers ActClass ActionMotion to DismissCompel ArbitrationPreemption
References
48
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

Padilla v. Manlapaz

Plaintiff Adriane Padilla sued Santiago Manlapaz, Lilia Reyes, Visayas Corporation, Baguio Corporation, and Melpito Corporation (owners/operators of Barrio Fiesta restaurant) for violations of New York Labor Laws. These violations included failure to pay minimum wage, overtime, spread of hours compensation, and illegal wage deductions. Plaintiff worked as a waitress from 2003-2006, often earning below the state minimum wage, and wages were unlawfully withheld for fines. The court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, finding the defendants' actions willful due to their disregard for legal wage requirements and failure to maintain adequate records. Consequently, plaintiff was awarded a total of $24,714.50, comprising lost wages, liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest. Defendants Manlapaz and Reyes were also found to be individually liable as 'employers' under the New York Labor Law.

Wage and Hour DisputeMinimum Wage ViolationOvertime PaySpread of Hours CompensationIllegal Wage DeductionSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawEmployer LiabilityWillful ViolationLiquidated Damages
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Copper v. Cavalry Staffing, LLC

Derek Copper and Leslie Minto filed a collective action against Cavalry Staffing, Tracy Hester, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime, minimum-wage violations, and inaccurate wage statements. Enterprise's motion to dismiss based on not being an employer was denied, with the court finding sufficient pleading for joint employer status. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss was denied for overtime and wage statement claims, but granted for minimum-wage claims. The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a collective action, finding adequate factual showing from named plaintiffs and additional affidavits. The parties were directed to agree on notice procedures for opt-in plaintiffs.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawUnpaid OvertimeMinimum WageWage StatementsJoint EmployerCollective ActionConditional CertificationMotion to DismissWage Theft Prevention Act
References
24
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
35
Showing 1-10 of 8,749 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