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
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. 06-Civ.-2268
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2008

In Re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation

This consolidated class action lawsuit addresses whether pharmaceutical sales representatives (Reps) employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC) are entitled to overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and corresponding New York and California state wage laws. Plaintiffs, current and former Reps, claim they qualify for overtime, while NPC argues they are exempt as outside salespersons or administrative employees. The Court granted summary judgment for NPC, finding that the Reps are exempt from overtime requirements as outside salespersons and administrative employees under both federal and state laws. The court also noted that some highly compensated employees would also be exempt, but did not need to fully rule on that point given the broader exemptions found.

Overtime PayFLSA ExemptionOutside Sales ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionPharmaceutical IndustryWage and Hour LawsClass ActionSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawCalifornia Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koljenovic v. Marx

Plaintiffs Halit and Safet Koljenovic sued defendants David Marx and his corporate entities for unpaid overtime wages under FLSA and New York Labor Law, and Halit also claimed unauthorized wage deductions. Defendants sought partial summary judgment, arguing plaintiffs were exempt from overtime as live-in janitors and that no direct wage deductions occurred. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the overtime claim for work in their resident buildings, but denied it for work performed in other buildings. The motion for summary judgment on Halit's unauthorized wage deduction claim was denied, as a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding compelled side payments. The case will proceed on the remaining claims.

Wage and HourOvertime PayWage DeductionFLSANew York Labor LawBuilding SuperintendentsJanitorial ExemptionSummary JudgmentEmployment LawQueens
References
19
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
Sep 29, 2016

Chaohui Tang v. Wing Keung Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves wage and overtime claims by truck drivers and loaders (Chaohui Tang, Jianli Li, Jian Liu, and Qingze Liu) against their former employer, Wing Keung Enterprises, Inc., a wholesale food business in Queens, New York, and its CEO, Keung Chan. Plaintiffs allege minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL), and failure to provide required notices. Defendants claim exemption under the federal Motor Carriers Act (MCA) for overtime and assert they paid required wages. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report, finding plaintiffs exempt from overtime under the MCA only for periods they demonstrably worked on interstate routes, denying both parties' summary judgment motions in part due to factual disputes on actual pay and non-exempt periods, and setting the case for trial on remaining claims.

Wage and Overtime ClaimsFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawMotor Carrier Act ExemptionTruck DriversLoadersInterstate CommerceIntrastate RoutesSummary JudgmentMagistrate Judge Report and Recommendation
References
29
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

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

Pest v. Bridal Works of New York, Inc.

Irena Pest filed an action against Bridal Works of New York Inc. and Aleksandra Bach for unpaid overtime wages and wage notice violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Pest, a seamstress, alleged she worked over 40 hours weekly without proper compensation, with defendants manipulating timecards and failing to provide accurate wage statements or notices in Polish. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of proof for overtime and time-barred claims. The court denied most of the defendants' motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding overtime work, willful violations, and the method for calculating Pest's regular rate of pay. Pest voluntarily withdrew her NYLL Section 195(1) claims, and the court reserved decision on NYLL Section 195(3) violations and equitable tolling.

Overtime WagesFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawSummary JudgmentPiecework CompensationEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsWage Notice ViolationsPay Stub RequirementsLiquidated Damages
References
56
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

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
Showing 1-10 of 1,944 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