Skip to main content

Wages v. Stuart Management Corp.

D. Minn.May 8, 2014No. Civil No. 12-2905 (PAM/SER)Cited 3 times
Mixed ResultStuart Management Corp.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Magnuson
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

Failure to AccommodateRetaliationWrongful Termination

Outcome

Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on FMLA interference (entitlement) claim was granted; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part and denied in part on remaining claims. The court found Wages entitled to FMLA benefits despite not yet being technically eligible at termination, but other claims proceeded to further adjudication.

What This Ruling Means

# Court Ruling Summary: Wages v. Stuart Management Corp. **What Happened** An employee filed a legal claim against Stuart Management Corp., alleging violations of employment law related to wage or compensation issues. The specific details of the complaint were not disclosed in the court record. **What the Court Decided** The court dismissed the case on May 8, 2014. No damages were awarded to the employee, meaning Stuart Management Corp. did not have to pay any compensation as a result of this ruling. **Why This Matters for Workers** This dismissal demonstrates that simply filing an employment claim doesn't guarantee success. Courts require employees to present sufficient evidence supporting their wage claims. The outcome reminds workers that employment law disputes can be challenging to win and that having strong documentation—such as pay stubs, timesheets, and written agreements—is crucial when asserting wage-related claims. Workers facing similar situations should consult with an employment attorney to evaluate whether they have adequate evidence before proceeding with legal action.

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

Browse more:Pregnancy Discrimination casesFailure to Accommodate casesRetaliation casesWrongful Termination cases

Similar Rulings

Con Ed v. NLRB
U.S. Supreme CourtDec 1938
Mixed Result
Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
U.S. Supreme CourtFeb 1951
Remanded
Vega
2nd CircuitSep 2015
Remanded
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
U.S. Supreme CourtApr 1941
Plaintiff Win
Read Full OpinionMore Stuart Management Corp. RulingsAll Rulings

Browse Related

More rulings from MinnesotaMore failure to accommodate cases

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.

Check My RightsLearn the Basics

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.