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

Cartagena v. Challenger Columbia, Inc.

This case concerns six seamen who filed a motion for partial summary judgment against Challenger Columbia, Inc., Equity Steamship Agencies, Ltd., and John P. Emmans, seeking recovery for unpaid wages and other compensation after their vessel, the M/V Ocean Challenger, sank. The court addressed claims for wages, termination compensation, vacation pay, overtime, lost belongings, interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees. Applying Panamanian law and principles of issue preclusion, the court granted summary judgment for the seamen on claims matching the amounts in their pay vouchers, including wages, termination compensation, vacation pay, lost belongings, and overtime, as well as interest and liquidated damages. However, claims for additional compensation beyond the pay voucher amounts for lost possessions and overtime, and claims for attorney's fees, were denied, with the latter requiring a finding of 'callousness' which is a factual issue.

Seamen's wagesAdmiralty lawMaritime lawPanamanian Labor CodeSummary judgmentCorporate veil piercingAlter ego liabilityOvertime pay disputeLost personal belongingsPrejudgment interest
References
7
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
Nov 23, 2015

Mendez v. U.S. Nonwovens Corp.

This case involves allegations by employees against U.S. Nonwovens Corp. and its principals for failing to pay timely wages, overtime, and spread of hours wages in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class action for various causes of action, including unpaid overtime, untimely wages, unpaid spread of hours premium, and breach of oral agreement. The Court denied class certification for claims related to unpaid overtime and untimely wages, finding a lack of commonality and predominance due to individualized proof requirements. However, the Court granted class certification for the claim regarding the failure to pay a spread of hours premium, determining that a common policy of not paying this premium predominated over individual issues. Consequently, a class was certified for non-exempt workers who were not paid the spread of hours premium, and class representatives and counsel were appointed.

Class ActionWage and HourOvertime PaySpread of HoursTimely WagesFLSANYLLRule 23 CertificationEmployment LawClass Certification Denied in part
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Frank

James Long, representing himself, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against the United States Postal Service and Postmaster General Anthony M. Frank, alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) due to his 1982 employment termination. He sought overtime back pay and compensation for legal services. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that Long's claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, citing a prior Federal Circuit decision that affirmed MSPB rulings against him on attorney fees and overtime pay enforcement. The court acknowledged the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction over MSPB appeals but clarified that it lacked jurisdiction over ADEA discrimination claims. Consequently, the court denied the government's summary judgment motion regarding the ADEA-based overtime back pay claim, allowing it to proceed, but granted summary judgment on the claim for direct payment of attorney fees, finding it precluded by the Federal Circuit's prior ruling.

Age DiscriminationADEARes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionMSPB AppealsOvertime PayAttorney FeesFederal Employees
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Jet Blue Airways Corp.

Glenn Edwards initiated a putative class action against Jet Blue Airways Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law, article 19, § 650 et seq., concerning overtime compensation. Edwards claimed that Jet Blue failed to pay him at 1.5 times his regular rate for hours worked beyond 40 that were exchanged with coworkers. Jet Blue sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) § 213 (b) (3) for air carriers, which it argued was incorporated into New York's 12 NYCRR 142-2.2. The court acknowledged the applicability of the FLSA exemption to Edwards due to Jet Blue's status as an air carrier. However, the court ruled that 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 still mandates overtime pay at 1.5 times the basic minimum hourly rate for exempt employees, which in this context means their regular pay rate plus one half times the New York State minimum wage. Finding that Edwards' complaint sufficiently alleged inadequate overtime compensation under New York law based on this calculation, the court denied Jet Blue's motion to dismiss.

Class actionOvertime payLabor LawFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Railway Labor Act (RLA)Minimum wageAir carrier exemptionWage and hour disputeMotion to dismissNew York employment law
References
18
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kahn v. Superior Chicken & Ribs, Inc.

The plaintiff, Yousuf Mohammad Kahn, initiated this action against his former employer, Superior Chicken & Ribs, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning overtime pay. The court had previously dismissed claims related to meal periods and statutory contributions. The defendant subsequently filed for summary judgment on the outstanding overtime claims, contending that Kahn was exempt from overtime requirements as an executive or administrative employee. The court determined that Kahn satisfied both the 'salary basis' and 'duties' components of the exemption's short test, citing his application for a managerial position, prior work experience, sole on-site supervisory role, distinct uniform, and prior self-identification as a manager to medical professionals and in a bankruptcy filing. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby ruling that Kahn was indeed exempt from federal and state overtime pay regulations. The defendant's request for attorneys' fees was denied due to procedural non-compliance with Rule 11 and the absence of a bad faith finding under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

FLSAOvertime PaySummary JudgmentExecutive ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionNew York Labor LawManagerial DutiesSalary Basis TestDuties TestEmployment Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. D.M. Rothman Co.

Plaintiffs Talbert Johnson and Troy Saunders sued their employer, D.M. Rothman Company, Inc., for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA, NYLL, and LMRA, alleging Rothman failed to include certain wage differentials in overtime calculations as per their Collective Bargaining Agreement. Rothman counterclaimed for overpayment of wages and moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing claims related to grandfather and hi-lo pay due to LMRA preemption, as these required interpretation of the CBA. For night differential claims, the court found Rothman's overpayments largely offset any FLSA overtime owed, dismissing most of these claims. Johnson's LMRA claim was time-barred, while Saunders' LMRA claim regarding hi-lo pay remained potentially viable.

OvertimeFLSANYLLLMRAWage DifferentialsCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentGrievance ProceduresStatutory RightsPreemption
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almeida v. Aguinaga

Plaintiff Elza Almeida sued defendants Carlos and Christina Aguinaga for overtime and “spread-of-hours” pay under the New York Labor Law, specifically for her work as a live-in domestic service employee from 1990 to December 2005. The Aguinagas moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The court analyzed Almeida's claimed working hours, wages, and the applicable meal and lodging allowances under New York regulations. The court concluded that Almeida's claims for overtime pay from May 24, 2000, through December 2004, and for spread-of-hours pay from November 2001, through December 2004, should be dismissed because her total compensation, including allowances, met or exceeded the legally required amounts. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Almeida’s spread-of-hours claim for the period between May 24, 2000, and June 2001, allowing that specific claim to proceed to trial. Other claims, such as breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, were not addressed in this motion.

Domestic Service EmployeeOvertime PaySpread-of-Hours PayNew York Labor LawMinimum WageMeal and Lodging AllowancesSummary Judgment MotionWage ClaimsEmployment LawWage Order
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2009

Saunders v. City of New York

This collective action involves approximately 194 current and former municipal employees (Parent Coordinators and Parent Support Officers) who sued the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs alleged systematic violations of their overtime rights, including failure to pay time-and-a-half in cash, failure to pay for hours worked between 35 and 40, and wrongful conversion of compensatory time. They also sought equitable tolling of the statute of limitations due to defendants' failure to post required notices. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment regarding the unlawful provision of compensatory time in lieu of cash for overtime, as the collective bargaining agreement was silent on this matter. However, plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment on straight-time compensation and willfulness were denied. While defendants' overall motion for summary judgment was denied, the court *sua sponte* granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the 'failure to pay claim'.

FLSAOvertime CompensationCompensatory TimeCollective ActionSummary JudgmentEquitable TollingWillful ViolationPublic EmployeesLabor LawNew York City Department of Education
References
64
Showing 1-10 of 1,716 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