Skip to main content

Robinson v. Illinois Department of Human Services

N.D. Ill.August 27, 2025No. 1:22-cv-00889
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

The court dismissed plaintiff's wage notice and wage statement claims under New York Labor Law § 195 for failure to establish standing, as plaintiff did not allege a concrete injury-in-fact resulting from the alleged violations. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend the complaint.

What This Ruling Means

**Worker's Wage Notice Lawsuit Dismissed for Lack of Concrete Harm** A worker sued their employer, NYC 121 Foods Inc, claiming the company violated New York wage laws by failing to provide proper wage notices and wage statements as required by law. These notices typically inform workers about their pay rate, deductions, and other wage-related information that employers must provide. The court dismissed the case because the worker failed to show they suffered any concrete harm from these alleged violations. Under the law, workers must demonstrate they experienced actual injury or damages—not just that the employer failed to follow the rules. The judge found that simply not receiving proper wage notices wasn't enough to prove the worker was harmed in a measurable way. However, the court gave the worker a chance to revise and refile their complaint with better evidence of actual damages. This ruling highlights an important challenge for workers pursuing wage notice violations: it's not enough to show an employer broke the rules. Workers must demonstrate they suffered real, concrete harm as a result. This could include confusion about pay that led to financial problems, or inability to detect wage theft because of missing information.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.