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 Marzovilla v. New York State Industrial Board of Appeals

Petitioners Nicola Marzovilla and Valodome, Inc., challenged a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) which found they violated Labor Law § 196-d by misappropriating employee tips at their New York City restaurant, iTrulli. The misappropriation occurred from 2001 to 2005 through the inclusion of senior employees, Gianni Linardic and Alex Steidl, in a mandatory tip pool, despite their ineligibility due to supervisory roles or non-service primary duties. The Department of Labor (DOL) initially assessed approximately $407,000 in owed wages, interest, and penalties, a finding largely upheld by the IBA. The Appellate Division confirmed the IBA's decision, concluding that Linardic exercised "meaningful authority" over other servers and Steidl's duties were not principally customer service, thus rendering both ineligible for tip sharing. Consequently, the determination of tip misappropriation was upheld, and the petitioners' CPLR article 78 petition was dismissed.

Tip PoolingWage MisappropriationLabor Law § 196-dIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewRestaurant IndustrySupervisory EmployeesTip EligibilityCPLR Article 78Judicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp.

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Smith argues that Labor Law § 196-d, which prohibits employers from demanding or accepting parts of employee gratuities, is inapplicable to disputes over how a common tip pool is shared among employees. The dissent contends that the statute's purpose is to prevent employers from retaining tips meant for employees, not to regulate the internal distribution of pooled tips. Drawing a distinction from federal law and referencing a similar California case, Jou Chau v Starbucks Corp., the judge concludes that extending the statute to tip pooling among employees unnecessarily complicates the law and creates avenues for excessive regulation and litigation, despite agreeing with the majority's outcome in favor of Starbucks.

tip poolingLabor Law § 196-dgratuitieswage disputesemployer responsibilityemployee rightsstatutory interpretationdissenting opinionNew York lawCalifornia Labor Code
References
3
Case No. W2014-02286-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2016

Kim Hardy v. Tournament Players Club at Southwind, Inc., d/b/a TPC Southwind,

The Tennessee Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal to determine if an employee has a private right of action against an employer under the Tennessee Tip Statute (Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-2-107) for improper tip payment. The trial court initially dismissed the employee's claim, finding no such private right. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, relying on its prior 1998 holding in *Owens v. University Club of Memphis*. The Supreme Court found that the *Owens* decision was inconsistent with its subsequent jurisprudence on implying private rights of action, particularly in *Brown* and *Premium Finance*. Consequently, the Court declined to apply the doctrine of legislative inaction and held that no private right of action exists under section 50-2-107. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's dismissal.

Private Right of ActionTennessee Tip StatuteWage RegulationEmployee CompensationImplied Cause of ActionLegislative InactionStatutory InterpretationClass ActionMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradford v. Logan's Roadhouse, Inc.

This case is a proposed nationwide collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against Logan's Roadhouse, Inc., LRI Holdings, Inc., and Roadhouse Holding, Inc. Plaintiffs Carey Bradford and Cody Bolen, along with over a hundred opt-in plaintiffs, allege that LRI failed to properly compensate its tipped employees. The alleged violations include requiring tipped employees to perform non-tip producing work for sub-minimum wages, working "off-the-clock," and being forced to report "phantom tips" to avoid supplemental wage contributions. The plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and former tipped employees. The court granted the motion for conditional certification in part, finding that the plaintiffs made a "modest factual showing" that they were "similarly situated" and presented sufficient evidence of common FLSA-violating practices across LRI's restaurants in multiple states. The court also ordered LRI to provide names and addresses of potential class members for notice but denied requests for email addresses, social security numbers, and telephone numbers, as well as premature equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The parties were directed to confer on the notice and consent protocol.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Tipped EmployeesWage and Hour ViolationsCollective ActionConditional CertificationOff-the-Clock WorkMinimum WageOvertime PayEmployer PracticesClass Action Notice
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Salinas v. Diner

A claimant, a waitress, suffered a fractured hip and filed for workers' compensation benefits. Her case was established for a work-related injury, and a hearing was held to determine her average weekly wage, specifically regarding tip income. The Workers' Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage as $111.30 based on reported salary and tips. The claimant appealed, contending that unreported tip income of $266 should have been included, which would raise her average weekly wage to $199.97. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that Workers' Compensation Law § 14 and 12 NYCRR 357.1 [c] mandate that tip valuation be based on amounts reported to the employer, absent a specific agreement.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageTip IncomeUnreported IncomeWage CalculationWaitressFractured HipBoard Decision AppealStatutory InterpretationNYCRR
References
0
Case No. 11-cv-7679, 11-cv-8249
Regular Panel Decision

Tiro v. Public House Investments, LLC

This case consolidates two actions brought by "tipped/front of house" and "non-tipped/back of house" employees against several New York City restaurants and individuals for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiffs moved for class certification of their state-law claims. District Judge Colleen McMahon granted the motion in part, certifying eight subclasses based on employment at specific restaurants (Public House, Butterfield, Wicker Park, Black Finn) within the two broader categories of tipped and non-tipped workers. The court appointed Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP as class counsel but directed the parties to submit new joint proposed class notices. Defendants are also ordered to disclose employee information for the subclasses.

Class certificationWage disputeFLSANYLLLabor lawRestaurant industryCollective actionTipped employeesNon-tipped employeesEmployer liability
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myriad Development, Inc. v. Alltech, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Myriad Development, Inc. (Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant) and Alltech, Inc. (Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff) concerning three contracts: the APPRISE Agreement, AIMS Agreement, and Subcontract for Labor, as well as claims of trade secret misappropriation. Myriad alleged breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation, while Alltech filed counterclaims for breach of contract and conversion of photographs. The jury found Alltech materially breached the APPRISE and AIMS Agreements, and misappropriated Myriad's trade secrets. However, the Court, after review, ruled that Myriad could not recover lost profits for breach of the APPRISE and AIMS Agreements due to contract cancellation. The Court awarded Myriad $21,263 for unpaid amounts under the APPRISE Agreement, $198,110 for unpaid amounts under the Subcontract for Labor, and $250,000 in reasonable royalty for trade secret misappropriation. Alltech's counterclaims for conversion damages were denied due to insufficient evidence of fair market value.

Contract BreachTrade Secret MisappropriationLost ProfitsReasonable Royalty DamagesPunitive DamagesConversionAffirmative DefenseContract InterpretationRule 50(b) MotionJury Verdict
References
113
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chu Chung v. New Silver Palace Restaurant, Inc.

Plaintiffs, waiters at The New Silver Palace Restaurant in New York City's Chinatown, sued the restaurant and four of its principals for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. The core of the dispute revolved around the restaurant's practice of forcing waiters to pool and share their tips with management, known as 'black jackets'. The court determined that this tip-sharing arrangement was illegal and that the individual defendants, due to their ownership and managerial roles, qualified as 'employers' under the FLSA. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, ruling that the restaurant was not entitled to the tip credit against minimum wage and that the individual defendants were liable for damages, with the exact amount to be determined later.

Fair Labor Standards ActTip CreditMinimum WageTip PoolingNew York Labor LawEmployer LiabilitySummary JudgmentEconomic Reality TestRestaurant IndustryLabor Dispute
References
15
Case No. 05-18-01447-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2020

Snowhite Textile and Furnishings, Inc. v. Innvision Hospitality, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute between two competitors, Snowhite Textile and Furnishings, Inc. and Innvision Hospitality, Inc., in the furniture, fixture, and equipment (FF&E) industry. Innvision sued Snowhite for violations of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) and tortious interference with prospective business and existing contracts, alleging Snowhite misappropriated its bid proposal for the 'Odessa Project'. The district court rendered judgment in favor of Innvision. Snowhite appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for liability and damages, as well as the award of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference, damages, and willful and malicious misappropriation supporting attorney's fees.

Trade Secret MisappropriationTexas Uniform Trade Secrets ActTortious InterferenceProspective Business RelationsAppellate JudgmentSufficiency of EvidenceLost Profits DamagesAttorney's Fees AwardWillful MisappropriationConfidential Business Information
References
43
Case No. 14 Civ. 2740
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2016

Zorrilla v. Carlson Restaurants Inc.

This document addresses Defendants' motion to dismiss certain state-law claims within a nationwide wage-and-hour collective action. Plaintiffs, tipped employees of T.G.I. Friday's, alleged violations of labor laws in multiple states. The claims involved tip-pooling in New Jersey, uniform maintenance in Connecticut, tip-credits in Michigan, and various California Unfair Competition Law and Labor Code provisions. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the New Jersey, Connecticut, Michigan, and some California UCL claims, but denied dismissal for other California UCL claims and all California Labor Code claims. The decision also found that some California Labor Code claims related back to the original complaint, narrowing the scope of the ongoing litigation.

Wage and HourCollective ActionFair Labor Standards ActTip PoolingUniform ExpensesTip CreditUnfair Competition LawCalifornia Labor CodeStatute of LimitationsRelation Back Doctrine
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 208 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