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

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

Lopez v. Overtime 1st Avenue Corp.

This opinion addresses the parties' joint motions for entry of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, for leave to file an interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff Joysel Lopez initiated the suit in 2015, alleging overtime and minimum wage violations under the FLSA and NYLL, which later became a collective action joined by three other plaintiffs. The parties reached a settlement in 2016, but the Court declined to approve it due to concerns about the disproportionate distribution of funds to Lopez and the non-appearance of other plaintiffs. Subsequently, plaintiffs accepted Rule 68 offers of judgment, prompting the Court to examine whether judicial approval is required for such FLSA settlements, concluding that it is. The Court denies both motions, citing the need for judicial review of FLSA settlements, even under Rule 68, to protect plaintiffs from abusive deals and to uphold the FLSA's remedial goals. The Court also denies the request for interlocutory appeal to avoid further delaying the case and risking defendant's ability to pay.

Wage-and-hour disputeFLSANYLLRule 68 offer of judgmentInterlocutory appealJudicial approval of settlementCollective actionSettlement fairnessDistrict CourtSecond Circuit
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2013

O'Neill v. Mermaid Touring Inc.

Plaintiff Jennifer O’Neill, a former personal assistant to Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga) and Mermaid Touring, Inc., sued for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York’s Labor Law. O'Neill alleged she worked "24/7" on-call for a fixed salary without overtime pay. Defendants sought summary judgment on whether O'Neill was entitled to overtime for work performed outside New York, if her "on-call" time was compensable, and the method for calculating any due overtime. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the New York Labor Law claim for out-of-state work, but denied it regarding the compensability of "on-call" time and the method of overtime calculation due to unresolved factual disputes. Additionally, the Third Cause of Action was dismissed by consent.

Overtime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York Labor LawPersonal AssistantLady GagaOn-call TimeSummary Judgment MotionWage ClaimEmployee Misclassification
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Neary v. New York State Division of Budget

Five employees of the Division of Military and Naval Affairs State Emergency Management Office (DMNA) sought to annul a determination by the Director of the New York State Division of the Budget (DOB). The petitioners worked emergency overtime following the September 11, 2001 attack. DOB retroactively applied a 12% salary limitation from Civil Service Law § 134 (5) to their emergency overtime, which was earned under Civil Service Law § 134 (6). The court determined that DOB lacked statutory authority to impose such a cap on extreme emergency overtime, as section 134 (6) does not contain this limitation. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulling DOB's determination and ordering the processing of overtime pay requests without the applied 12% limitation.

overtime payemergency servicesCivil Service Lawstatutory interpretationadministrative discretionbudgetary limitationsWorld Trade Center attackNew York State lawgovernment employeesdisaster response
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pik Quan Leong v. 127 Glen Head Inc.

The plaintiff, Pik Quan Leong, initiated an action against 127 Glen Head Inc. (Kiraku Japanese Restaurant) and its owner, Jin Hang Zheng, alleging violations of Title VII, FLSA, New York Executive Law, and other state and city labor regulations, primarily focusing on unpaid overtime wages. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for her overtime pay claims. The court denied the plaintiff's motion, citing the presence of genuine issues of material fact regarding the actual hours worked, the typical pay rate, the amount of overtime hours, and the compensation received for overtime. The court also noted inconsistencies in the plaintiff's complaint and affidavit, as well as issues with missing time card records, contributing to the denial.

Overtime PaySummary Judgment MotionFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeEmployment LitigationMaterial FactsRecordkeeping InconsistenciesDistrict CourtCashier Employment
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 457 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