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

Harper v. Government Employees Insurance

This is a collective action where Plaintiff Candace Harper seeks overtime compensation from her former employer, GEICO, under the FLSA and New York State law, claiming she and other Telephone Claims Representatives (TCRs) were improperly denied overtime. GEICO argued TCRs were exempt administrative employees and moved for summary judgment, while Harper sought partial summary judgment against GEICO's exemption claim. The court denied Harper's motion for partial summary judgment and granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment, finding that TCRs perform administrative duties directly related to GEICO's business operations and exercise sufficient discretion and independent judgment to qualify for the administrative exemption. Consequently, the court did not address GEICO's motion to decertify the collective action.

FLSAOvertime CompensationAdministrative ExemptionSummary JudgmentCollective ActionInsurance IndustryClaims AdjustersDiscretion and Independent JudgmentWage and HourTelephone Claims Representatives
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Keystone Silver, Inc.

This case addresses a motion to dismiss a complaint filed under Section 16b of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The central issue is whether an ex-employee can initiate and maintain a representative action on behalf of other current employees who are members of a rival union, particularly when these employees did not consent to the action and it proceeds against their will. The court ruled that such a representative action cannot be sustained under these circumstances, citing concerns about consent, interests of the represented parties, and public policy. The motion was granted to strike all allegations pertaining to the representative character of the action, except for Harry Orfinger's individual claim.

Fair Labor Standards ActRepresentative ActionLegal Capacity to SueMotion to DismissEx-EmployeeUnion RepresentationClass ActionMultiplicity of ActionsPublic PolicyEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trapani v. Consolidated Edison Employees' Mutual Aid Society, Inc.

This case addresses claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against Consolidated Edison Employees’ Mutual Aid Society, Inc. (Mutual Aid) and its administrative officer, Paul R. Westerkamp. Plaintiffs, Consolidated Edison employees represented by Local 3, seek an equitable share of Mutual Aid's assets and a special emergency loan fund after their membership ceased in 1983. Building on an earlier decision, the court found that defendants retained benefit assets attributable to Local 3 for the benefit of Local 1-2, violating ERISA. The court also determined that Mr. Westerkamp breached his fiduciary duty by mismanaging assets and participating in a settlement detrimental to Local 3. Consequently, Mr. Westerkamp is barred from administering the Staten Island Relief Fund, and the parties are directed to propose methods for equitable asset distribution.

ERISAEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanFiduciary Duty BreachAsset MismanagementEquitable DistributionUnion BenefitsConsolidated EdisonMutual Aid SocietyPaul R. WesterkampLocal 3 IBEW
References
21
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

Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers, International Union of America v. General Baking Co.

The case involves a union, representing production and maintenance employees, suing several bakery companies for an alleged lockout. The union brought the action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, claiming a breach of the no-lockout provisions in their collective bargaining agreements. The alleged lockout occurred when the defendant bakery companies halted operations and sent home the plaintiff union's members, even though there was no direct labor dispute between them. This action was a response to a strike by a separate drivers' union against one of the bakery companies. The court defined a lockout as an employer withholding work to gain a concession *from their employees*. Since the defendants were not in a dispute with the plaintiff union and their actions were not intended to coerce concessions from them, the court ruled that no lockout had occurred. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Labor LawLockoutCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActBreach of ContractNo-lockout ClauseStrikeUnionEmployer-employee Relations
References
9
Case No. 7:10-CV-1132
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2010

Gorey v. MANHEIM SERVICES CORPORATION

This is a conditionally certified Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action where Plaintiff Carol Gorey and other opt-in plaintiffs, identified as "outside sales representatives" for Manheim auto auctions, sued for alleged improper classification as overtime-exempt employees under FLSA and New York state law. Manheim cross-moved, asserting the plaintiffs were properly classified as exempt due to outside sales or administrative duties. The court found that Manheim failed to prove the applicability of either the outside salesmen or administrative employee exemptions, thereby granting in part and denying in part both parties' motions. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on their FLSA and New York labor and wage claims. Furthermore, the court limited the collective action to thirty-two opt-in plaintiffs, applying a two-year statute of limitations for ordinary FLSA violations, and specified Manheim Remarketing, Inc., and Manheim Investments, Inc. as the proper defendants, granting summary judgment to other corporate parents.

FLSAOvertime PayExemptionsOutside Salesman ExemptionAdministrative Employee ExemptionCollective ActionSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawStatute of LimitationsWillful Violation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Weisler & Novelty Workers Union, Local 28-A

This is a dissenting opinion by Justice Dore regarding an affirmed order. The dissent argues for the right of employees to seek decertification or deauthorization of a union after a statutory one-year period, citing precedents from the National Labor Relations Board and circuit courts. It emphasizes that employees should not be compelled to bargain through a representative they have repudiated. The dissenting judge finds the consequences of affirming the award, which directs the discharge of employees, to be drastic and without due opportunity for employee intervention. The dissent advocates for reversing the judgment and staying the order to allow the employees to pursue deauthorization or decertification before the National Labor Relations Board.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActTaft-Hartley ActUnion DecertificationDeauthorizationEmployee RightsCollective BargainingDissenting OpinionAppellate ReviewLabor Disputes
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brynien v. Governor's Office of Employee Relations

This case is an appeal of a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed petitioner’s applications to review denials of out-of-title work grievances. The petitioner, representing five state employees at the Office of Mental Health (OMH), alleged that employees were improperly assigned duties of a Treatment Team Leader, a higher-grade position, violating their collective bargaining agreement and Civil Service Law § 61 (2). OMH and the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations (GOER) denied the grievances, finding the duties appropriate to the employees' titles. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that GOER's determination was rational. The court found that the assigned duties were a reasonable extension of the employees' in-title duties and that the employees did not meet the minimum requirements for the higher-grade Treatment Team Leader position.

Out-of-title workGrievanceCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee ClassificationJob DutiesSupervisory DutiesRational Basis ReviewAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 5,507 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