No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Court granted summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor on FLSA overtime claims and NYLL minimum-wage, overtime, and spread-of-hours claims for the certified class. Court granted plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss remaining NYLL Section 195 wage-notice claims without prejudice and denied defendants' motion to decertify the class.
Martinenko v. 212 Steakhouse Inc. – Court Summary
What Happened
Workers at 212 Steakhouse sued the restaurant, claiming they weren't paid correctly. Specifically, they said the company failed to pay overtime wages required by federal law, didn't pay minimum wage properly, and didn't follow rules about how work hours were scheduled throughout the day.
What the Court Decided
The judge ruled in favor of the workers on most claims. The court found that 212 Steakhouse violated federal overtime laws and violated New York State's minimum wage and overtime requirements. This decision applies to the entire group of workers involved in the lawsuit, not just one person. The judge rejected the restaurant's attempt to break up the group lawsuit and allowed workers to drop one remaining claim without losing their right to pursue it later.
Why This Matters
This ruling confirms that restaurants must properly calculate and pay overtime and minimum wages. The decision strengthens workers' ability to bring class-action lawsuits against employers for wage violations, making it harder for companies to dismiss group claims.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Martinenko from the same court.
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.