Skip to main content

Perez v. Denco Construction LLC

D. Colo.September 12, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02766
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
710 Labor: Fair Standards
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 TheftFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Court denied in part and granted in part Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order and Corrective Notice regarding settlement agreements allegedly signed under duress by Spanish-speaking construction workers. The Court found certain settlement agreements unenforceable due to lack of mutual assent and language barriers, while addressing wage-and-hour violations under the FLSA and Colorado state law.

What This Ruling Means

**Perez v. Denco Construction LLC - Court Ruling Summary** This case involved a worker who claimed their employer, Denco Construction LLC, failed to pay proper wages - a situation known as wage theft. The worker filed a lawsuit seeking to recover unpaid wages they believed they were owed. The court dismissed the case entirely, meaning the worker's claims were thrown out without any money awarded. No damages were reported, indicating the worker received no compensation for their wage theft allegations. However, there appears to be some confusion in the court records, as the case details also reference a separate habeas corpus petition (a type of legal challenge typically used in criminal cases) involving a different person named Jared D. Littrell and an employer listed as "Director, TDCJ-CID" (Texas Department of Criminal Justice). This suggests there may be errors in the case documentation. **What this means for workers:** When wage theft cases are dismissed, it typically means the worker couldn't prove their employer violated wage laws, the case had procedural problems, or it was filed incorrectly. Workers facing wage theft should carefully document their hours worked and wages owed, and may want to consult with employment attorneys or labor departments before filing claims.

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

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

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.