No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Secretary of Labor and Azteca Restaurante Mexicano, Inc. settled FLSA wage and hour violations through a consent decree requiring the employer to pay $58,462.80 in back wages to employees, $116,925.60 in liquidated damages, and $23,075.00 in civil money penalties, along with injunctive relief against future violations.
Azteca Restaurante Mexicano Wage Theft Settlement
The Dispute
The U.S. Department of Labor sued Azteca Restaurante Mexicano, Inc. for violating federal wage laws. The restaurant had failed to pay employees the full wages they earned.
The Court's Decision
Rather than go to trial, the restaurant agreed to settle the case. Azteca must pay $198,463.40 total, broken down as follows: $58,462.80 in back wages owed to workers, $116,925.60 in additional damages (doubling the back wages), and $23,075.00 in penalties to the government. The settlement also includes a court order requiring the restaurant to follow wage laws going forward or face further penalties.
Why This Matters
This case shows that the government actively investigates wage theft complaints and takes action when employers violate pay laws. Workers who believe they haven't been paid fairly have a federal agency investigating on their behalf. The doubled damages penalty signals that courts take wage violations seriously and can require employers to pay significantly more than what was stolen. Affected employees at Aztaca will receive compensation for wages they earned but didn't receive.
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.