No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Plaintiff prevailed on default judgment against Spicy Pizza Corp. and its owner for FLSA overtime violations and state wage-and-hour claims. Court awarded $89,700 in unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages ($89,700), and $26,946.40 in attorneys' fees and costs, for a total judgment of $206,346.40.
Alonso v. Spicy Pizza Corp. — What Workers Should Know
What Happened
An employee at Spicy Pizza Corp. sued the company and its owner for wage theft. The worker claimed the employer failed to pay proper overtime wages and violated federal and state wage laws. The employer did not respond to the lawsuit.
The Court's Decision
A federal court in New York ruled in favor of the employee. The judge found that Spicy Pizza Corp. violated overtime laws and owed the worker money. The court ordered the company to pay $89,700 in unpaid overtime wages, an additional $89,700 in penalties, and $26,946 in attorney fees—totaling $206,346.40.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that courts take wage theft seriously and will hold employers accountable. If your employer fails to pay overtime properly or ignores wage disputes, you may be entitled to not just back pay, but double damages plus legal fees. This makes it financially risky for companies to cheat workers on wages. If you believe you're owed overtime pay, consider consulting with an employment attorney.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.