Skip to main content

Hopkins v. Cornerstone America

N.D. Tex.March 30, 2007No. 3:05-mj-00332Cited 3 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Terry R. Means
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
State
Texas

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage TheftRetaliationWrongful TerminationBreach of Contract

Outcome

Court determined that all plaintiffs except Chris Fox were employees (not independent contractors) under the FLSA, granting them partial summary judgment on employee status. Court partially denied defendants' motion to dismiss, finding subject-matter jurisdiction and that termination violated public policy, but the opinion is truncated before final damages determination.

What This Ruling Means

# Hopkins v. Cornerstone America Summary **What Happened** A worker named Hopkins filed a lawsuit against Cornerstone America, claiming the company failed to pay wages owed to them. This type of dispute—where employees allege they didn't receive full payment for work performed—is called wage theft. **What the Court Decided** The federal court in Texas dismissed the case. This means the court ended the lawsuit without ruling on whether the wage theft actually occurred. The case was dismissed before a trial could take place. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case illustrates that not all wage theft claims succeed in court. When cases are dismissed early, workers don't receive compensation for unpaid wages. For employees facing similar situations, this underscores the importance of documenting work hours, keeping pay stubs, and reporting wage problems to government agencies like the Department of Labor before pursuing costly lawsuits. Workers may have better success filing complaints with labor agencies, which investigate for free and can compel employers to pay without requiring workers to hire a lawyer.

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.