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. Dkt.# 63
Regular Panel Decision

Conner v. Celanese, Ltd.

This case involves two plaintiffs, Hazel Conner and Sytheria Tucker, who sued their employer, Celanese, Ltd., alleging breach of employment contract, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for overtime and retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) for Tucker. The dispute arose from a change in shift structure in 1987 from 8-hour to 12-hour shifts, where employees on 12-hour shifts were paid a lower hourly rate, adjusted to maintain annualized wages, which plaintiffs claim was not properly disclosed. The Court denied summary judgment on the breach of contract claim due to factual disputes over wage modification. However, summary judgment was granted for the defendant on the FLSA overtime and retaliation claims, as the 'regular rate' for overtime was the rate actually paid, and alleged actions did not constitute an 'ultimate employment decision.' Summary judgment was also granted for the defendant on Tucker's IIED claim, finding the conduct not extreme and outrageous.

Employment LawBreach of ContractWage DisputeFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime PayFLSA RetaliationSummary JudgmentConstructive DischargeIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)Texas Law
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cruz

This case addresses the calculation of a decedent's average weekly wage under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, specifically Section 408.041. Jesus Cruz, an independent contractor, was killed, and the dispute centered on whether the $19 per hour payment for equipment rental and supplies should be included in his wage, in addition to the $6.50 per hour for labor. The hearing officer and appeals panel initially excluded the equipment reimbursement, setting the wage at $354 based on Rule 128.1. However, the widow successfully challenged this in district court, where a jury, relying on expert testimony that included estimated profits from equipment, increased the wage to $581. This appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, affirming that payments for equipment reimbursement are not to be included in the average weekly wage, thereby reinstating the $354 figure and remanding the associated attorney's fees issue.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageIndependent ContractorEquipment ReimbursementLabor LawStatutory InterpretationTexas LawAppellate ReviewAttorney's FeesWage Calculation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp.

Plaintiffs, former employees of Applebee's restaurants in New York, initiated a collective and class action, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law concerning spread of hours and uniform reimbursement. Defendants sought summary judgment on specific claims. The court addressed the interpretation and application of New York's former 'spread of hours' provision and disputes over costs associated with required work apparel. It ultimately granted summary judgment to defendants on spread of hours claims for employees earning above minimum wage. For uniform-related claims, the court dismissed claims for ordinary wardrobe items but denied summary judgment for the laundering costs of Applebee's logo shirts for minimum wage employees.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York State Labor LawSpread of Hours ProvisionUniform ReimbursementSummary JudgmentMinimum WageClass ActionCollective ActionRestaurant Industry
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brukhman v. Giuliani

This case addresses a dispute between welfare recipients participating in New York City's Work Experience Program (WEP) and City and State social services departments. Plaintiffs, recipients of Home Relief (HR) and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADC), claimed they were not receiving fair economic credit for work performed, as their hours were calculated using the Federal minimum wage instead of comparable wages for similar work. They sought class certification and a preliminary injunction. The court granted class certification and intervention for proposed plaintiffs-intervenors. It also denied the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss, ruling that administrative remedies would be futile. Ultimately, the court granted a preliminary injunction, mandating that the City defendants prospectively calculate WEP participants' hours based on the higher of the State/Federal minimum wage or the rate for comparable work by regular employees, citing Social Services Law and the New York State Constitution.

Work Experience Program (WEP)Welfare ReformPublic AssistanceHome Relief (HR)Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADC)Class ActionPreliminary InjunctionWage ComparabilityMinimum Wage LawSocial Services Legislation
References
14
Case No. M1999-00676-SC-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2001

Dorothy Wilkins v. The Kellog Company

Dorothy Wilkins, an employee of The Kellogg Company, sustained a right shoulder injury and was placed on light duty, which reduced her work hours but not her hourly wage. The trial court awarded her temporary partial disability benefits based on her 'average weekly wage.' Kellogg appealed, arguing that the relevant statute for temporary partial disability should calculate benefits based on the difference between the hourly wage at the time of injury and the hourly wage earned while partially disabled. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the statutory language for temporary partial disability benefits does not incorporate the 'average weekly wage' concept. Consequently, Wilkins was found not entitled to temporary partial disability benefits because her hourly wage remained unchanged.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Partial DisabilityWage CalculationStatutory InterpretationAverage Weekly WageLight Duty ProgramTennessee Supreme CourtAppealHourly WageBenefit Calculation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers' International Union of America

This case involves a review of a determination finding discrimination. The court affirmed the discrimination finding, stating it was based on substantial evidence. However, the Commissioner's calculation of damages was found to be erroneous. The original damage award for eight complainants was based on an hourly wage rate applicable to only one. The court modified the awards for complainants whose actual wages were less than the hourly wage rate used by the Commissioner, accepting their actual hourly wage rate and hours lost. Awards where actual wages exceeded the determined rate were not disturbed due to the absence of a cross-appeal.

DiscriminationDamagesWage RateErroneous ComputationJudicial ReviewModificationComplainantsHourly WageSubstantial EvidencePanel Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Xiong Chen v. Weiqui Zhang

Plaintiff Xiong Chen brought an action against defendants Weiqi Zhang, Shuk Ping Lai, Bai Qiang Su, and 128 Montague Inc. (Andy’s Restaurant) alleging violations of federal and state wage laws, specifically regarding overtime premiums under the FLSA and NYLL, and spread of hours premium under the NYLL. Both parties moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied both motions in their entirety, citing numerous genuine disputes over material facts such as employment duration, work hours, breaks, and tip earnings. The court also rejected defendants' argument that Bai Qiang Su was not an 'employer' under the FLSA and NYLL due to the expansive interpretation of the term. Furthermore, the court found that Chen's earnings likely did not even meet the minimum wage requirements.

Wage DisputeOvertime PayMinimum WageFLSANYLLSummary Judgment MotionEmployer LiabilityRestaurant EmploymentTip EarningsLabor Law Violations
References
6
Case No. 2016-02-0436
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2017

Richards, Michael v. A-1 Expert Tree Service

Michael C. Richards filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking temporary disability benefits, disputing his average weekly wage and compensation rate. He claimed an average weekly wage of at least $400.00, supported by his and his girlfriend's testimonies of working over forty hours per week. A-1 Expert Tree Service acknowledged an initial miscalculation but argued for a lower average weekly wage of $244.09. The Court found that while Mr. Richards is likely to prevail, he did not provide sufficient evidence for his requested rate. Based on the available, albeit incomplete, wage statements, the Court determined Mr. Richards' average weekly wage to be $250.00 per week and his compensation rate to be $166.67, ordering A-1 to pay any underpayment.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingAverage Weekly WageTemporary Disability BenefitsCompensation RateWage StatementBurden of ProofEmployee TestimonyEmployer RecordsUnderpayment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubery v. Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc.

Yvette Rubery, a former manager at The Body Shop, initiated a collective action alleging misclassification as an "exempt" employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, seeking unpaid overtime wages. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing Rubery met the executive exemption criteria, while Rubery cross-moved for partial summary judgment, contesting her primary duties were managerial and disputing the number of employees she supervised. The court denied both summary judgment motions, citing the presence of material factual disputes concerning Rubery's primary job responsibilities and the actual hours of subordinate supervision. Additionally, the court addressed the interpretation of "customary and regular" supervision and the inclusion of non-working hours in supervision calculations, deferring final rulings on these issues for factual determination. The defendant's motion to strike certain evidence submitted by the plaintiff was granted.

FLSAOvertime PayExecutive ExemptionEmployee MisclassificationSummary JudgmentPrimary Duty TestManagerial ResponsibilitiesSubordinate SupervisionNew York Labor LawFederal Rules of Evidence
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 6,820 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