Manhattan Parking Group LLC
4 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2013–2024)
3 trusted published court opinions across 1 distinct case
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Manhattan Parking Group LLC as an employer in 4 distinct federal employment cases between 2013 and 2024.
The most common claims on record were Wage Theft.
Cases were filed across 1 state (NY).
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Written decisions across 1 distinct case.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Manhattan Parking Group LLC appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
De La Cruz v. Manhattan Parking Group LLC d/b/a Manhattan Parking Group (2022) — Settlement. Approximately 1,600 parking attendants and other workers sued Manhattan Parking Group LLC, claiming the company violated federal and state wage laws. The workers alleged they were not paid properly for their work—a practice known as wage theft. Read the ruling.
De La Cruz v. Manhattan Parking Group LLC d/b/a Manhattan Parking Group (2022) — Settlement. This case involved a worker named De La Cruz who sued Manhattan Parking Group LLC, claiming the company violated federal wage and hour laws. The worker alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which sets rules for minimum wage, overtime pay, and other workplace protections. Read the ruling.
De La Cruz v. Manhattan Parking Group LLC d/b/a Manhattan Parking Group (2021) — Settlement. Workers employed by Manhattan Parking Group sued the company for wage theft—meaning the company allegedly failed to pay workers the full wages they were legally owed. Because multiple employees were affected, this became a class action lawsuit, where one or more workers represent a larger group with similar complaints. Read the ruling.
The published opinion involves a wage theft claim. Browse other wage theft rulings for comparable fact patterns and how courts have ruled. Wage Theft.
Published opinions span New York. New York is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. New York rulings.
These published opinions sit within the transportation sector, where USERRA, FMLA, and DOT safety-retaliation claims appear alongside standard discrimination claims.
Claim Types
States
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other Transportation & Logistics employers
Browse trusted published opinions involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.