Plaintiff home healthcare attendant claimed denial of minimum wages and overtime pay. The District Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims, ruling that plaintiff was exempt from the protections of the FLSA under the “companionship” exemption, set forth at 29 U.S.C. § 213(15).

Plaintiffs claim that they are part of a nation wide class of persons similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), who performed services for defendants' profit making America Online ("AOL") service, but were designated as "volunteers" by AOL, and not paid for their services.

Plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of companions similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), who worked long hours for a hospital, often over 60 to 80 hours per week, but were designated as independent contractors and not paid the statutory time and a half for their services over 40 hours per week. Pendant class state claims include denial of overtime pay and spread of hours premium pay. Pendant class state claims include denial of overtime pay and spread of hours premium pay

Plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of nurses similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), who were not paid the statutory time and a half for their services over 40 hours per week. Pendant class state claims include denial of overtime pay and spread of hours premium pay. Pendant class state claims include denial of overtime pay and spread of hours premium pay.

Plaintiffs claim that they are part of a nation wide class of persons similarly situated under the FLSA, who performed services for defendants' profit making internet service, but were designated as independent contractors by Primedia and not paid for their services. Pendant class state claims include denial of overtime pay and minimum wages, breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and unjust enrichment.

Limousine drivers claimed denial of overtime pay, minimum wages and gratuity pay . A class and settlement were preliminarily certified. Dissatisfied plaintiffs retained our firm, and after objections were placed before the court, the class certification and settlement were denied.

Claims for race, national origin and ethnicity discrimination and retaliation, and disability discrimination, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §2000 et. seq.), 42 U.S.C. §1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws; and for failure to pay wages and overtime pay, and for retaliation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law.

Waiters sued their restaurant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime pay, improper deductions and retaliatory termination, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Section 6, 7 and 15, 29 U.S.C. Section 206, 207 and 215 and the New York State Labor Law Sections 190 et. seq., 215 and 650 et. seq.

Claims for prevailing wages pursuant to 42 USC. Section 1983.

Waiters sued for discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and ethnicity in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, Executive Law §290 et. seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law, §8-107 of the Administrative Code; for fraudulent withholding of tips, denial of regular wages, refusal to pay overtime at the proper rate, and retaliation against plaintiffs for complaining about these wage violations, in violation of the New York State Labor Law §190 et. seq., and §215; and for endangering the health and safety of plaintiffs by failing to properly remove asbestos from the work premises.

Claims for retaliatory discharge for complaining about race and sex discrimination directed at fellow female employee pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law, Executive Law §290 et. seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law, §8-107 of the Administrative Code; as well as for unpaid wages and retaliatory discharge, pursuant to New York State Labor Law §190 et. seq., and §215.

Plaintiffs brought a class action against an arts and culinary school in New York and across the nation, on behalf of similarly situated admissions officers under 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and the New York State Labor Law, for denial of statutory time and a half payment for their services over 40 hours per week.

Class action for wage violations, including refusal to pay overtime wages, improper wage deductions, denial of benefits, and retaliation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act §§7 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., 1132(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3), and the New York Labor Law §§190 et. seq., §215 and §650 et. seq.; and unjust enrichment.

Action for unpaid wages and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, and for breach of contract, detrimental reliance and fraud.