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

Rhodes v. Bedford County, Tenn.

This case involves an action brought by employees of the Bedford County Ambulance Service against Bedford County, Tennessee, alleging violations of Sections 7 and 8 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically regarding minimum wage and overtime provisions. The dispute arose following the Supreme Court's Garcia decision, which made FLSA applicable to state and municipal employees, and subsequent Congressional amendments aimed at easing the transition for local governments. Plaintiffs argued that the county failed to pay proper minimum wage and overtime from April 15, 1986, to June 30, 1986, and that the subsequent change from salaried to hourly pay on July 1, 1986, constituted a scheme to avoid overtime requirements by artificially deflating the regular rate. The court found that the county’s failure to provide proper overtime payments was a continuous violation, thus plaintiffs’ action was not barred by the statute of limitations. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the issue of liability under Section 7 of the FLSA, finding both periods of violation. Liquidated damages were awarded for the initial period, but a question of material fact remained for the later period. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage LawPublic Agency EmploymentMunicipal Government LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionsContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of Limitations FLSAWage and Hour DisputeAntidiscrimination in Employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2015

Cruz v. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc.

Jorge-Cruz ("Plaintiff") sued AAA Carting and Rubbish Removal, Inc. and Pasquale Cartalemi, Jr. ("Defendants") for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL), specifically for unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, and failure to pay spread of hours. Defendants moved to dismiss federal claims under Rule 12 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for minimum wage violation, and alternatively for summary judgment under Rule 56, arguing the FLSA's motor carrier exemption applies to Plaintiff. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted it for the FLSA minimum wage violation claim, finding Plaintiff's average hourly wage exceeded the minimum. The court also denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment without prejudice, citing the need for discovery to determine if Plaintiff's interstate driving activity was a natural, integral, and inseparable part of his duties or if the goods transported were in the flow of interstate commerce.

FLSANYLLOvertime WagesMinimum WageMotor Carrier ExemptionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(c) MotionRule 56 MotionInterstate CommerceWage and Hour Dispute
References
70
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. 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

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 41 v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

Plaintiffs challenged the defendants' wage rate determinations for work on Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP) projects, arguing that HUD's regulation 24 C.F.R. § 968.3 improperly classified 'development' work as 'operation' work, leading to lower wages. They also alleged violations of New York State Public Housing and Labor Laws. The court dismissed the federal claims (Counts One through Four) for lack of jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the Wage and Hour Administrator, emphasizing the need for agency expertise. The remaining state law claim (Count Five) was dismissed without prejudice due to the absence of federal claims, leading to the dismissal of the entire complaint against all defendants.

Wage Rate DisputesComprehensive Improvement Assistance ProgramHousing Act of 1937Davis-Bacon ActAdministrative Exhaustion DoctrineStatutory InterpretationHUD RegulationsFederal Court JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionPublic Housing Projects
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2017

Gamero v. Koodo Sushi Corp.

This case involves former employees (Israel Gamero, Norberto Mastranzo, and Oscar Sanchez) suing their former employer (Koodo Sushi and Michelle Koo) for wage-and-hour and record-keeping violations under the FLSA and NYLL. Following a bench trial, the court found that while the plaintiffs had inflated their claims, the defendants failed to maintain accurate payroll records and unlawfully deducted meal and tip credits. The court awarded damages to all three plaintiffs for unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and violations of NYLL wage statement requirements. Additionally, Gamero received damages for a wage notice violation, but claims related to tools of the trade and tip withholding were denied. Overall, the plaintiffs were granted relief on seven of their nine claims, albeit for a fraction of the damages originally sought.

Wage-and-Hour ViolationsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Minimum WageOvertime CompensationTip CreditMeal CreditRecord Keeping ViolationsWage Statement ViolationsLiquidated Damages
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. State

The case concerns a challenge by home care service agencies and a trade association (petitioners) to New York's Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law § 3614-c). This law conditions Medicaid reimbursement for home health care services in the metropolitan New York area on agencies paying home care aides a minimum wage, determined by reference to New York City's Living Wage Law. Petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional due to improper delegation of legislative authority, violation of the "incorporation by reference" clause, and violation of home rule provisions. They also challenged the Department of Health's (DOH) interpretation of "total compensation." The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the respondents (DOH), and the appellate court affirmed, finding no improper delegation, no violation of the incorporation by reference clause, home rule provisions inapplicable as Medicaid is a state concern, and DOH's interpretation of "total compensation" to be rational.

Wage Parity LawHome Health Care ServicesMedicaid ReimbursementConstitutional LawLegislative AuthorityNew York City Living Wage LawHome RuleDue ProcessDepartment of HealthStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agency Construction Corp. v. Hudacs

This case concerns a general contractor (Petitioner) who challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor regarding prevailing wage violations. The Petitioner, having subcontracted a public works project to Rock Hill Construction, was held liable when Rock Hill failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to its employees. An administrative hearing found Rock Hill guilty of underpayments and submitting false payroll records. The Commissioner adopted recommendations for repayment, interest, and penalties. The Petitioner sought review, questioning employee classifications, hours worked, and the assessed amounts. The court confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding it was supported by substantial evidence, and dismissed the petition.

prevailing wagespublic workssubcontractor liabilitywage underpaymentfalse payroll recordscivil penaltyinterest assessmentjob classificationemployee testimonysubstantial evidence
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 9,143 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