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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lai Chan v. Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc.

This is a class action suit where plaintiffs, current and former employees, allege violations of the Labor Law for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread of hours wages, and failure to comply with proper notification requirements. They also assert third-party beneficiary claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, arguing the defendant failed to pay them according to the Home Care Worker Wage Parity Act and New York City’s Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act, as required under the defendant's contracts with government agencies. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint or compel arbitration, arguing preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act and the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and good faith reliance on administrative opinions. The court denied the defendant's motion in its entirety, finding the claims not preempted and adequately stated.

Labor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PaySpread of Hours PayWage Parity ActFair Wages for New Yorkers ActClass ActionMotion to DismissCompel ArbitrationPreemption
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kawatra v. Gardiner

This case concerns an appeal regarding a dispute over unpaid wages and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Employee Sunil Kawatra initially won a judgment for unpaid October 1986 wages against Dr. W.H. Gardiner and Nephrology, Inc. in General Sessions Court. On de novo appeal to the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Kawatra sought additional FLSA damages and fees. The Circuit Court awarded the unpaid wages but denied the FLSA claims, deeming Kawatra an exempt executive employee. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the FLSA was not intended to extend minimum wage and overtime protections to highly salaried exempt employees in employment contract disputes.

Fair Labor Standards ActExecutive Employee ExemptionUnpaid WagesAttorney's FeesEmployment Contract BreachSalary Basis TestAppellate ReviewWage and Hour LawExempt EmployeeManagerial Duties
References
15
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

Salustio v. 106 Columbia Deli Corp.

Ruben Salustio and Arturo Vivaldo sued 106 Columbia Deli Corporation and Ibrahim Alzubairy for unpaid wages and overtime under the FLSA and NYLL. The court dismissed FLSA claims as the defendants' gross annual sales were below the $500,000 enterprise coverage threshold, but retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The court found Vivaldo was underpaid due to an invalid tip credit and unpaid overtime, and both plaintiffs were entitled to statutory damages for lack of proper wage notices and statements. Salustio was awarded $2,500, while Vivaldo received $16,428.66 in unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Wage and HourOvertime PayMinimum WageTip CreditStatutory DamagesLiquidated DamagesPrejudgment InterestEnterprise Coverage
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santana v. Latino Express Restaurants, Inc.

Plaintiff Lucero Santana sued Latino Express Restaurants, Inc. and Tommy Pimental for violations of FLSA, NYLL, WTPA, and NYCHRL, alleging unpaid minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, and gender discrimination and retaliation. The Court granted Santana's motion for default judgment, finding the defendants liable for wage and hour violations, sexual harassment, and retaliation. Santana was awarded unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and WTPA damages. The Court referred the matter to a Magistrate Judge for an inquest into emotional distress damages related to the NYCHRL claims. The Court also addressed the non-cumulative nature of liquidated damages under FLSA and NYLL, but allowed prejudgment interest under NYLL.

Wage and Hour ViolationsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA)New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)Gender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliationDefault JudgmentUnpaid Wages
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maggione v. Bero Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, an executive employee, sought summary judgment against the defendant corporation for unpaid wages. The central legal issue was whether Labor Law § 193, which prohibits unauthorized wage deductions, applies to executive-level employees. The court ruled that it does, asserting that while certain other sections of Article 6 of the Labor Law exclude executive employees, Section 193 does not. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment of $13,000 for unpaid wages. However, summary judgment was denied on claims concerning a bonus, 1980 salary, and vacation time due to insufficient evidence from the plaintiff. The defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's causes of action regarding willful withholding of wages and attorney's fees was also denied, as these were deemed factual questions.

Executive EmployeeWage DeductionsLabor Law Article 6Summary JudgmentUnpaid WagesEmployment DisputeStatutory InterpretationExecutive CapacityEmployer ObligationsWage Payment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stennett v. Moveway Transfer & Storage, Inc.

This appellate decision addresses a plaintiff's appeal regarding the dismissal of several labor law claims. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of a statutory cause of action under Labor Law § 231, concluding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, which is a prerequisite for such a claim. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the common-law breach of contract claim, asserting that employees can act as third-party beneficiaries to recover unpaid prevailing wages. Additionally, the court reinstated the claim for unpaid overtime wages under the Minimum Wage Act (Labor Law article 19), clarifying that this cause of action is independent of Labor Law § 231 and does not require prior administrative determination. The decision thus outlines the distinct requirements and remedies available for different types of wage claims under New York Labor Law.

CPLR 3211(a)(7)Motion to DismissPrevailing WageLabor Law § 231Private Right of ActionAdministrative ExhaustionBreach of ContractThird-Party BeneficiaryMinimum Wage ActLabor Law Article 19
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cuzco v. Orion Builders, Inc.

Plaintiff Saul Marcelo Cuzco filed a class action against Jan Kvas and Orion Builders, Inc., alleging violations of the FLSA and NYLL for unpaid overtime, minimum wage, and timely wage payments, along with "spread of hours" wages. The court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on FLSA claims, finding them entitled to unpaid minimum and overtime wages but not late payment compensation. Defendants' motion for summary judgment on FLSA claims was denied. The court also granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for their NYLL claims, determining commonality, numerosity, typicality, and adequacy of representation were met for a class of construction or carpentry workers employed by Defendants from September 1, 2002, through December 31, 2005. The cross-motions for summary judgment on the NYLL claims were denied without prejudice, pending notice to the class.

FLSANYLLOvertime WagesMinimum WageWage PaymentClass ActionCollective ActionSummary JudgmentClass CertificationLabor Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. Whelan Security Co.

Brian Gonzalez, the Plaintiff, filed an "Original Petition" in Texas state court against Whelan Security Company and Whelan Security of Texas LLC, alleging an on-the-job back injury and subsequent termination/discrimination for instituting a worker's compensation proceeding, in violation of Texas Labor Code Sections 451 et seq. He also claimed unpaid wages. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for the wage claim, or alternatively, diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing his worker's compensation claim is non-removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c), and that neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction applies to the wage claim. The Court, presided over by District Judge Philip R. Martinez, granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand, concluding that the worker's compensation claim is indeed non-removable, and that Defendants failed to demonstrate federal question or diversity jurisdiction for the unpaid wage claim. The Court denied Plaintiff's request for costs and attorney's fees, finding Defendants had objectively reasonable grounds for removal.

Worker's CompensationMotion to RemandFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionFair Labor Standards ActUnpaid WagesRetaliatory TerminationTexas Labor CodeState CourtFederal Question
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,254 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