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. 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. 08-02-00452-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2003

Jesse Davila v. Pay & Save Corporation D/B/A Lowe's Market Place, Inc.

Jesse Davila appealed a summary judgment against him in favor of his former employer, Pay & Save Corporation, doing business as Lowe's Market Place, Inc. Davila was fired after another employee accused him of sexual harassment. He sued Pay & Save, alleging defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pay & Save on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Davila failed to establish error regarding his claims, and denied Pay & Save's motion for damages for frivolous appeal.

Sexual HarassmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealDefamation ClaimNegligence ClaimInvasion of PrivacyFraud AllegationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityScope of Employment
References
15
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. 2002-22690-A
Regular Panel Decision

City of Houston v. Williams

The City of Houston appealed a partial judgment in favor of former fire fighters concerning their compensation. The fire fighters had two claims: one for improper deductions of previously paid overtime from their termination payouts (Debit Dock claim) and another for the exclusion of premium pay from their lump-sum termination payouts for unused leave (Termination Pay claim). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the City did not possess governmental immunity and that the fire fighters were not obliged to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. It further held that the City's methods for calculating both overtime and termination pay were non-compliant with the Texas Local Government Code, mandating the inclusion of approved leave in overtime calculations and premium pay in termination payouts. This decision upholds the fire fighters' right to statutorily authorized compensation for services rendered.

Governmental ImmunityOvertime CompensationTermination PayoutsAdministrative RemediesStatutory InterpretationMunicipal EmploymentFire Fighters' WagesLocal Government CodeTexas ConstitutionEmployment Contracts
References
51
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

Lenihan v. Boeing Co.

Karen A Lenihan, an employee of The Boeing Company, filed a lawsuit alleging sexual discrimination, including unequal pay, failure to promote, denial of overtime, and sexual harassment, alongside a breach of contract claim. The court granted Boeing's motion for summary judgment on the claims of failure to promote, failure to provide overtime, sexual harassment, and breach of contract, finding these either time-barred or lacking a prima facie case. However, the court denied summary judgment for Lenihan's claims of unequal pay under the Equal Pay Act and pay discrimination under Title VII, allowing these claims to proceed to trial due to outstanding issues of material fact.

Sexual DiscriminationGender DiscriminationEqual Pay ActTitle VIIWage DiscriminationFailure to PromoteSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentContinuing Violation
References
173
Showing 1-10 of 2,849 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