No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Plaintiff Compaore obtained a default judgment and was awarded $160,182.67 in damages for unpaid prevailing wages, unpaid overtime wages, and liquidated damages under the FLSA and NYLL. Plaintiff Bonkoungou's damages request was denied without prejudice pending clarification of his employment dates and damages calculation methodology.
Court Rules in Favor of Worker Against Security Company
What Happened
A worker employed by Royal Protective Services, Inc. sued the company for not paying wages owed. The worker claimed the employer failed to pay proper overtime wages and the prevailing wage (a minimum rate set by law for certain jobs). This is called wage theft.
What the Court Decided
The court sided with the worker. One plaintiff, Compaore, won a default judgment and received $160,182.67 in total damages. This money covers unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, and additional penalties under federal and New York laws. A second plaintiff, Bonkoungou, had his damages request denied temporarily because the court needed clearer information about his employment dates and how damages should be calculated.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that courts take wage theft seriously and can award significant compensation. Workers who are not paid properly—whether regular wages or overtime—have legal protections and can sue to recover what they're owed, plus additional damages as punishment to the employer. Keeping clear records of work dates and hours strengthens a worker's case.
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.