No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Plaintiff Teoh won a jury verdict on claims for unpaid overtime wages and unpaid spread of hours wages under New York Labor Law. The court awarded $184,067.52 in compensatory damages plus $45,170.77 in attorney's fees and $8,382.25 in costs, and is currently considering defendants' post-trial motion challenging the constitutionality of the regulation used to calculate damages.
Teoh v. Manhasset Restaurant, LLC — Plain English Summary
What Happened
Teoh worked for multiple restaurant companies and claimed his employers failed to pay him properly. Specifically, he said they didn't pay him overtime wages when he worked extra hours and didn't compensate him fairly for irregular work schedules (known as "spread of hours").
What the Court Decided
A jury agreed with Teoh. The court ordered the restaurants to pay him $184,067.52 in damages for unpaid wages. The employers must also cover his attorney's fees ($45,170.77) and court costs ($8,382.25). The court is still reviewing whether the law used to calculate these damages is valid, but Teoh has already won his case.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling reinforces that restaurants and other employers must pay workers for all hours worked, including overtime. If employers fail to do this, they can face significant financial penalties. Workers who believe they haven't been paid properly for overtime or irregular shifts have legal protections and can pursue compensation through the courts.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Teoh from the same court.
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.