No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court approved a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement agreement whereby the plaintiff received $36,755.00 in total compensation ($11,255.00 allocated to wages and liquidated damages, and $25,500.00 to attorneys' fees and costs) in resolution of claims that the defendant failed to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation.
Hopkins v. LRW Traffic Systems: Court-Approved Settlement
What Happened
Hopkins worked for LRW Traffic Systems and claimed the company failed to pay him the legally required minimum wage and overtime compensation. These are basic protections under federal labor law designed to ensure workers receive fair pay.
What the Court Decided
The court approved a settlement agreement between Hopkins and his employer. LRW Traffic Systems agreed to pay Hopkins $36,755 total. Of this amount, $11,255 covered unpaid wages and additional damages, while $25,500 went to cover his lawyer's fees and court costs.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case reinforces that companies must follow wage laws. When employers underpay workers or fail to pay overtime, employees have legal remedies available. Workers can pursue claims through the courts and recover what they're owed, plus attorney fees. If you believe your employer hasn't paid you properly for hours worked, this case shows the legal system can help recover that money. Keeping careful records of your work hours is important to support such claims.
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.