Skip to main content

Salazar-Martinez v. Fowler Brothers, Inc.

W.D.N.Y.March 15, 2011No. 6:10-cr-06257Cited 2 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Michael A. Telesca
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
710 Fair Labor Standards Act
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage TheftBreach of Contract

Outcome

Court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on the merits of wage reimbursement claims, but granted in part the motion to dismiss claims for years 2003-2005 when defendant did not participate in H-2A program. Case remanded for further proceedings on class certification and remaining claims for 2006-2007, 2008-2009, and 2010.

What This Ruling Means

# Salazar-Martinez v. Fowler Brothers, Inc. **What Happened** Farm workers sued Fowler Brothers, Inc. for wage theft and breach of contract. The workers claimed the company failed to reimburse them for work-related expenses they should not have had to pay, specifically related to a federal agricultural worker program spanning multiple years. **What the Court Decided** The court made a mixed ruling. It dismissed claims from 2003-2005 because the company wasn't participating in the relevant program during those years. However, the court allowed the wage reimbursement claims to move forward for 2006-2009 and 2010. The case was sent back to a lower court to determine if workers could proceed as a group lawsuit and to continue deciding the remaining claims. **Why This Matters** This ruling shows that courts will examine wage theft claims year by year, based on the company's actual program participation. While some claims were dismissed, the decision to allow others to proceed means workers may still recover unpaid wages. The case advancing to the next stage offers hope that a group of affected workers could seek relief together.

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

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.