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
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
Jul 26, 2017

Sanchez v. New York Kimchi Catering, Corp.

Plaintiff Walter Neira Sanchez filed a class action lawsuit against his former employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), alleging various wage and hour violations including unpaid overtime, failure to pay spread of hours premium, and lack of proper wage notices and statements. He sought class certification for the NYLL claims. The court, presided over by Judge Loma G. Schofield, partially granted and partially denied the motion. Class certification was denied for the overtime and spread of hours claims due to insufficient evidence of commonality and numerosity. However, the court certified a class for claims related to wage and hour notices and wage statements for non-exempt employees who worked for Gum Gang Inc. after March 1, 2014, finding these claims met Rule 23 requirements. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC was appointed as class counsel.

Wage and HourClass ActionFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawOvertime PayMinimum WageTip CreditWage StatementsWage NoticesRule 23
References
31
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04473 [186 AD3d 594]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2020

Moreno v. Future Health Care Servs., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of class certification for a putative class action brought by former home health care aides against Future Health Care Services, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law article 19, specifically concerning minimum wage payments for 24-hour shifts. The court, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, considered the Department of Labor's interpretation of Minimum Wage Order Number 11, which permits exclusion of up to 11 hours for sleep and meal breaks in 24-hour shifts. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate commonality, as they did not allege a lack of prescribed breaks or provide sufficient evidentiary basis for systemwide wage violations, thus failing to meet the requirements of CPLR article 9. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision to deny class certification was upheld.

Class ActionLabor LawMinimum Wage24-hour ShiftsHome Health Care AidesClass CertificationWage OrderAppellate ReviewJudicial InterpretationNew York Department of Labor
References
7
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. 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. 993 F.Supp.2d 229
Regular Panel Decision

Enriquez v. Cherry Hill Market Corp.

José Enriquez sued his employer, Cherry Hill Market Corp., Cherry Hill Gourmet, Inc., and David Isaev, for alleged violations of New York state minimum-wage, overtime, and spread-of-hours laws. He sought to certify a class of employees, but the motion was denied because individual inquiries into each employee's pay and hours predominated over common questions. Enriquez requested reconsideration, arguing the court misapplied Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes to wage-and-hour cases. However, the court denied reconsideration, reiterating that claims of systematic underpayment require individual damage calculations, which would overwhelm any common issues and make a class action inefficient.

Wage and HourClass ActionClass CertificationReconsideration MotionPredominanceCommonalityTypicalityNumerosityFLSANew York Labor Law
References
27
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

Padilla v. Manlapaz

Plaintiff Adriane Padilla sued Santiago Manlapaz, Lilia Reyes, Visayas Corporation, Baguio Corporation, and Melpito Corporation (owners/operators of Barrio Fiesta restaurant) for violations of New York Labor Laws. These violations included failure to pay minimum wage, overtime, spread of hours compensation, and illegal wage deductions. Plaintiff worked as a waitress from 2003-2006, often earning below the state minimum wage, and wages were unlawfully withheld for fines. The court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, finding the defendants' actions willful due to their disregard for legal wage requirements and failure to maintain adequate records. Consequently, plaintiff was awarded a total of $24,714.50, comprising lost wages, liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest. Defendants Manlapaz and Reyes were also found to be individually liable as 'employers' under the New York Labor Law.

Wage and Hour DisputeMinimum Wage ViolationOvertime PaySpread of Hours CompensationIllegal Wage DeductionSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawEmployer LiabilityWillful ViolationLiquidated Damages
References
33
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,606 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