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. 23 NY3d 906
Regular Panel Decision

The Matter of Walter E. Carver v. State of New York

Petitioner Carver, a 69-year-old Vietnam War veteran, participated in the City of New York's Work Experience Program (WEP) from 1993 to 2000, performing tasks like sorting mail and sweeping floors in exchange for public assistance and food stamps. In 2007, after winning $10,000 in the New York State Lottery, the State, through OTDA, recouped $5,000 under Social Services Law § 131-r (1) to reimburse itself for past public assistance benefits. Carver initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging this recoupment violated his rights under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Minimum Wage Act, arguing that the recoupment effectively reduced his compensation below minimum wage, as he was an "employee" under the FLSA. The Supreme Court initially dismissed his claim, but the Appellate Division reinstated the FLSA cause of action, applying the "economic reality test" and concluding that WEP participants are FLSA employees. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the City should be considered Carver's employer under the FLSA's "economic reality test" due to factors like control over work, supervision, and maintenance of records, and that WEP workers are entitled to minimum wage protections, thus preventing the State from retroactively depriving Carver of minimum wage through benefit recoupment.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Work Experience Program (WEP)Minimum WagePublic AssistanceWelfare ReformEconomic Reality TestEmployee StatusLottery WinningsRecoupment of BenefitsState Law Preemption
References
18
Case No. 12-CV-8450 (JMF)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2014

Saleem v. Corporate Transportation Group, Ltd.

Plaintiffs, a group of drivers for a black car business, sued the Defendants, a consortium of transportation and franchisor entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid overtime. The central issue was whether the drivers should be classified as 'employees' or 'independent contractors.' The Court, after cross-motions for summary judgment, applied the economic reality test for FLSA and the control test for NYLL. The Court determined that, under both statutes, the drivers were independent contractors due to their control over their schedules, ability to work for competitors, significant business investments, and independent initiative. Consequently, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Independent ContractorEmployee MisclassificationFLSANYLLBlack Car BusinessDriversSummary JudgmentEconomic Reality TestControl TestLabor Law
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hatcher v. Augustus

The plaintiff, Philip Hatcher, a 7-Eleven store manager, initiated an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against the franchisee, Warner Augustus, and the franchisor, Southland Corporation. Hatcher alleged wrongful termination based on his religion after being fired for refusing to work on Sunday mornings. Southland Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not Hatcher's employer within the context of Title VII. The court applied a 'hybrid test,' which combines economic realities and common law agency tests, to determine employer status. Despite Southland providing payroll services to the franchisee, the court found that Augustus had exclusive control over Hatcher's employment. The court concluded that Southland was not Hatcher's 'employer' under Title VII and granted Southland's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it.

Title VIIReligious DiscriminationFranchisor LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementHybrid TestControl TestEconomic Realities TestEmployment Law
References
30
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04673 [241 AD3d 726]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2025

Shujing Yu v. Mask Pot, Inc.

In this putative class action, Shujing Yu sought unpaid overtime wages from Mask Pot, Inc., BK Spice World, Inc., and several individuals, alleging they operated as joint employers and a single enterprise. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding sufficient allegations that BK Spice, Hui Fang, and Wei Zhao were employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Labor Law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, holding that the complaint adequately pleaded both functional control and a single integrated enterprise under the economic reality test.

Overtime WagesFair Labor Standards ActLabor LawJoint EmployersEconomic Reality TestSingle EnterpriseAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissSufficiency of PleadingFunctional Control
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Winfield v. Babylon Beauty School of Smithtown Inc.

The case addresses allegations that cosmetology students were not paid minimum or overtime wages for performing services in defendant-operated clinics. Plaintiffs Winfield, Allen, and Carcani sued Babylon Beauty School, Long Island Beauty School, and individual owners, citing violations of the FLSA, NYLL, and Florida Constitution. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court denied dismissal for the FLSA and NYLL claims, finding a plausible employer-employee relationship under the "economic reality" test for the schools and owners. However, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the Florida Constitution claim, dismissing it due to unresolved state law issues regarding pre-suit notice requirements.

Wage and Hour DisputeFLSA ClaimsNYLL ClaimsMotion to DismissCosmetology School LiabilityStudent Worker StatusUncompensated LaborEconomic Reality TestSupplemental JurisdictionFlorida Wage Law Conflict
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. ABC Carpet & Home

Plaintiff Richard Lee sued ABC Carpet & Home, Jerry Weinrib, and Paul Chapman for back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, asserting he was an employee. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending Lee was an independent contractor. The court employed the five-factor 'Economic Reality Test' to determine employment status. Significant factual disputes emerged concerning employer control, Lee's potential for profit or loss, the required skill for the work, the permanence of the working relationship, and whether carpet installation was an integral part of ABC's business. Given these unresolved material facts, the court denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorSummary Judgment MotionEconomic Reality TestWage DisputesEmployment LawCarpet InstallersEmployer Control
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. 201 West 103 Corp.

Plaintiffs Nicomedes Flores and Crisofo-ro Campos brought a class and collective action against several corporate and individual defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid wages and overtime compensation. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to strike a declaration. The Court denied the motion to strike as moot. The motion to dismiss was granted in part for defendants 1600 Amsterdam Avenue Corp. and Francesca Fiori, but denied for the remaining corporate defendants and individual defendant Daniele Fiori, based on plausible allegations of a single integrated enterprise and employer status under the FLSA's economic reality test.

FLSANYLLUnpaid WagesOvertime CompensationClass ActionCollective ActionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Employer StatusEconomic Reality Test
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jean-Louis v. Metropolitan Cable Communications, Inc.

Current and former Metro technicians sued Metropolitan Cable Communications, Inc., its executives, and Time Warner Cable of New York City for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Time Warner moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not a joint employer of the technicians. The Court applied the 'economic reality' test, assessing factors of formal and functional control. Finding that Time Warner lacked significant control over hiring, firing, schedules, payment, or records, and that most functional control factors also weighed against joint employment, the Court granted Time Warner's motion for summary judgment. The sole factor supporting joint employment, that Metro technicians worked exclusively for Time Warner, was deemed insufficient to establish an employer relationship.

FLSAOvertime PayJoint EmploymentEconomic Reality TestSummary JudgmentSubcontractingCable TechniciansEmployer-Employee RelationshipFormal ControlFunctional Control
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clancey v. American Management Ass'n, Inc.

This age discrimination action involves plaintiffs alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State statutes against defendant American Management Association (AMA). AMA moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs were independent contractors, not employees, and thus not eligible for ADEA claims. The court, applying the 'economic realities' test consistent with Second Circuit precedent, found numerous disputed material facts regarding the plaintiffs' employment status. These facts included AMA's control over plaintiffs, their opportunity for profit or loss, the duration of their working relationship, and the integral nature of their work to AMA's business. Consequently, the court denied AMA's motion for summary judgment, determining that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether the plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawIndependent Contractor StatusSummary Judgment MotionEconomic Realities TestADEAFLSAWorker ClassificationControl TestSecond Circuit Precedent
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2006

Barfield v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation

Plaintiff Anetha Barfield, a nurse working at Bellevue Hospital through referral agencies, sued Bellevue and its principal, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, for violating the FLSA's overtime provisions. The central issue was whether Bellevue qualified as Barfield's "employer" under FLSA, given she was paid by referral agencies. Applying the "economic reality" test from Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., the court found that Bellevue exercised functional control over Barfield, making it a joint employer. The court rejected Bellevue's arguments that Barfield was not entitled to overtime because an agency informed her it wouldn't pay overtime or that she prevented Bellevue from tracking her hours. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to Barfield on liability and awarded both unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages due to defendants' failure to ensure FLSA compliance.

FLSAOvertime PayJoint EmployerEconomic Reality TestSummary JudgmentNursing Referral AgenciesWage and Hour LawLiabilityLiquidated DamagesDistrict Court
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 682 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