No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claims and summary judgment on his Fair Labor Standards Act claim, finding that Figueroa was a piece-rate employee rather an hourly employee and that Butterball properly calculated and paid wages.
Osvaldo Figueroa v. Butterball, LLC: Court Ruling Summary
What Happened
Osvaldo Figueroa worked for Butterball, LLC and claimed the company improperly withheld wages from his paychecks in violation of wage and hour laws. He filed a lawsuit seeking damages under North Carolina state wage laws and federal wage standards.
What the Court Decided
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Butterball. The court confirmed that Figueroa was a piece-rate employee—meaning he was paid based on the amount of work he completed rather than hourly wages. The court found that Butterball correctly calculated and paid what Figueroa earned under this payment structure. The appeals court upheld the lower court's dismissal of his North Carolina wage claims and rejected his federal wage claims. Figueroa received no compensation.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling reinforces that companies can legally use piece-rate pay systems if they calculate compensation correctly. Workers paid by production output should carefully review their paychecks and understand how their wages are computed. If you believe your employer miscalculated piece-rate pay, documenting your work output and comparing it to your paycheck is important for any potential dispute.
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.