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

Heagney v. European American Bank

Plaintiffs in this action allege that the defendant, European American Bank, discriminated against them based on age, violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The plaintiffs sought the court's authorization to proceed as an "opt-in" class action and to send notice to potential class members. The Court granted the motion, concluding that the case may proceed as an opt-in class suit, broadly defining the class to include employees whose employment was terminated through various mechanisms, not just early retirement, between June 1, 1984, and December 31, 1985. Furthermore, the Court determined that plaintiffs' counsel could provide written notice to other potential class members without requiring formal court authorization, citing recent Supreme Court rulings on attorney advertising and finding no legal precedent to prohibit such notice. The Court also found that the administrative filing requirements under the ADEA were satisfied for the class.

Age DiscriminationADEAClass ActionOpt-in ClassClass CertificationAttorney AdvertisingSolicitation of ClaimsEEOC Administrative ChargeFair Labor Standards ActEarly Retirement Incentive Program
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ritz v. Mike Rory Corp.

A bartender sued the owners of Astoria Brewhouse for underpayment and retaliatory termination under the FLSA and NYLL, seeking to proceed as a collective action. After conditional certification was granted, defendants offered a Rule 68 judgment to the plaintiff and moved to dismiss the case as moot, arguing the offer satisfied the individual claims and no other plaintiffs had opted in. The court, presided by Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein in the Eastern District of New York, found the motion premature. It distinguished the case from Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, noting that a stay on notifying potential class members was imposed at the defendants' request, preventing others from opting in. The court lifted the stay, ordered the defendants to disclose employee contact information, and allowed the plaintiff to send opt-in notices, deferring the motion to dismiss until after the notice period.

FLSANYLLWage-and-HourCollective ActionRetaliatory TerminationOffer of JudgmentRule 68MootnessConditional CertificationDistrict Court
References
10
Case No. CA 11-00560
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2011

DEROSA, PATRICIA v. DYSTER, PAUL

Patricia DeRosa, a retired employee of the City of Niagara Falls, commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking post-employment health insurance coverage or opt-out payments. The Supreme Court partially granted her petition against the City. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, concluding that the petitioner was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before commencing the proceeding, as she was not an "employee" when she became aggrieved and thus no grievance procedure was available under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). However, the court found that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) permitted only qualified *employees* to opt out of the health care plan, not retirees. Therefore, the judgment was modified to dismiss the part of the petition seeking to compel opt-out payments from the City, while affirming the part that entitled her to enroll in the health care plan at no cost. A dissenting opinion argued that the petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, and the petition should have been dismissed in its entirety.

CPLR Article 78Health InsuranceOpt-out PaymentsCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesRetiree BenefitsExhaustion of RemediesAppellate ReviewMunicipal LawLabor Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2009

Claim of Galanos v. Nevada Utilities

In December 2006, the claimant sustained injuries during a physical altercation at work. Initially, her workers' compensation claim was established, and a weekly rate was set. However, the carrier later sought to suspend payments, asserting that the claimant had previously signed a C-105.51 form, opting out of workers' compensation coverage due to her status as an executive officer. The claimant disputed her officer status and argued that the carrier should be estopped from denying coverage after making payments. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled in favor of the employer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant's opt-out election remained valid and that the doctrines of laches and estoppel were inapplicable.

Workers' Compensation CoverageExecutive Officer ExemptionOpt-out Form C-105.51Estoppel DoctrineLaches DoctrineCorporate Officer StatusEmployment Status DisputeWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSubstantial Evidence ReviewCoverage Disclaimer
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manigault v. MacY's East, LLC

Carla Manigault sued Macy’s East, LLC and Terry Whittaker for alleged sexual harassment and retaliation under federal, New York State, and New York City human rights laws. Defendants sought to compel arbitration, citing Macy's "Solutions InSTORE" dispute resolution program which allowed employees to opt-out. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration, ruling that Manigault's mere silence and inaction did not constitute acceptance of the arbitration agreement under New York contract law. The court emphasized that a binding agreement requires clear manifestation of assent, which was absent despite Macy's efforts to inform employees about the opt-out procedure. The decision underscored the principle that an offeror cannot unilaterally create a contract based solely on an offeree's silence.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIFederal Arbitration ActContract LawArbitration AgreementOpt-Out PolicyEmployment LawSilence as AcceptanceHuman Rights Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Viriri v. White Plains Hospital Medical Center

Plaintiff Brian Viriri sued White Plains Hospital Medical Center for unpaid and overtime wages under the FLSA and New York Labor Law, seeking conditional collective certification. Viriri, a former registered nurse, alleged the hospital had a common policy of compensating nurses based on predetermined schedules rather than actual hours worked, which routinely exceeded scheduled time and included unpaid overtime. Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification, finding a modest factual showing of a common policy that violated the law. The Court also approved the proposed notice with modifications for potential opt-in plaintiffs. Additionally, the statute of limitations for potential opt-in plaintiffs was equitably tolled from November 21, 2016, until the date of the Opinion & Order.

FLSAOvertimeUnpaid WagesCollective ActionConditional CertificationEquitable TollingWage and Hour LawRegistered NursesHealthcare EmploymentDistrict Court
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Proctor v. Allsups Convenience Stores, Inc.

Plaintiffs initially filed this case alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically that Allsup's Convenience Stores conspired to avoid paying overtime to hourly employees by requiring them to work off the clock. The court had previously granted class certification, and over 1,000 employees opted into the lawsuit. Following discovery, the Defendants filed a Motion for Decertification, arguing that the plaintiffs were not "similarly situated." The court examined the standard for decertification, considering factual and employment settings, individual defenses, and procedural fairness. Concluding that there was no uniform policy causing off-the-clock work and significant factual disparities existed among the plaintiffs' claims, the court granted the motion to decertify the class. All opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice, with only the claims of the named plaintiffs, Lesa Proctor and Duncan Proctor, remaining.

FLSAClass ActionDecertificationOff-the-Clock WorkOvertime PaySimilarly SituatedWage and HourJudicial EconomyManageabilityFactual Disparities
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falcon v. Starbucks Corp.

Plaintiff Falcon, a former Assistant Store Manager for Starbucks, filed a collective action under the FLSA, alleging Starbucks failed to pay overtime wages to Assistant Store Managers (ASMs). The Court initially granted conditional class certification, leading 355 ASMs to opt into the lawsuit. Defendants moved to decertify the collective action, arguing that the plaintiffs were not similarly situated, defenses were individualized, and the action would be unmanageable. The Court denied the motion, finding that the opt-in plaintiffs were similarly situated due to common job titles, descriptions, pay provisions, and a pervasive environment created by Starbucks' policies that incentivized off-the-clock work and time shaving. The Court also concluded that individualized defenses could be addressed through representative testimony and that fairness considerations favored maintaining the collective action, upholding the remedial purposes of the FLSA.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAOvertime WagesCollective ActionClass CertificationDecertification MotionOff-the-Clock WorkTime ShavingAssistant Store ManagersStarbucks
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nieddu v. Lifetime Fitness, Inc.

This case involves a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action brought by former hair stylist Pier Nieddu against Lifetime Fitness. Nieddu sought conditional certification for a class of commission-paid hair stylists at Lifetime Fitness's Houston CityCentre location, alleging failures to pay minimum wage and overtime due to a policy of not tracking all hours worked, resulting in "off-the-clock" labor. The court, applying an intermediate standard of review, denied the motion for conditional certification. The decision concluded that Nieddu failed to demonstrate that the putative class members were "similarly situated" or victims of a common illegal policy, citing Lifetime Fitness's clear timekeeping regulations and the highly individualized nature of the plaintiff's and opt-in plaintiff's complaints. As a result, opt-in class member Rosalind Hampton was dismissed without prejudice.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActCollective ActionConditional CertificationOff-the-Clock WorkUnpaid Minimum WageUnpaid Overtime CompensationCommission-Paid EmployeesHair StylistsEmployment Law
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snively v. Peak Pressure Control, LLC

Plaintiffs Jason Snively, Stephen Clark, and others similarly situated filed a motion for conditional certification against Defendants Peak Pressure Control, LLC and Nine Energy Service, LLC. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically that Pressure Control Operators were not paid overtime wages despite working in excess of 40 hours per week, instead receiving a base salary and bonuses. The court reviewed the motion under the Lusardi two-stage approach and found sufficient evidence that aggrieved and similarly situated individuals exist and desire to opt-in. Consequently, the court granted in part the motion for conditional certification, setting forth directives for a revised notice to potential plaintiffs, including a 60-day opt-in period and approval for notice dissemination via mail, email, and workplace posting.

FLSACollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime WagesWage and HourPressure Control OperatorsOilfield ServicesFair Labor Standards ActEmployer LiabilityMisclassification
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 123 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