Skip to main content

In re Taco Bell Wage & Hour Actions

E.D. Cal.July 15, 2016No. Case No. 1:07-cv-01314-SABCited 32 times
SettlementTaco Bell

Case Details

Judge(s)
Boone
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Class action consolidated in the Eastern District of California, affirmed/addressed by 9th Circuit
Circuit
9th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Consolidated wage and hour class action against Taco Bell resolved through settlement, addressing allegations of unpaid wages and wage statement violations affecting multiple employees.

What This Ruling Means

**Taco Bell Workers Win Wage and Hour Settlement** This case involved multiple Taco Bell employees who sued the fast-food chain for wage and hour violations. The workers claimed they weren't paid all the wages they were owed and that their pay stubs didn't contain required information. These complaints were combined into one large class action lawsuit representing many affected employees. The court didn't make a final ruling on who was right or wrong. Instead, Taco Bell agreed to settle the case, meaning they paid money to resolve the claims without admitting fault. The settlement addressed the workers' allegations about unpaid wages and problems with wage statements, though the specific settlement amount wasn't disclosed in public records. This case matters for workers because it shows that employees can band together to challenge wage violations by large employers. Even major corporations like Taco Bell can be held accountable when workers unite in class action lawsuits. The settlement demonstrates that companies may choose to pay settlements rather than fight lengthy court battles over wage claims. Workers should know they have rights to proper pay and accurate wage statements, and there are legal ways to enforce these rights when employers fall short.

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

Similar Rulings

Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP Mari Newman and Towards Justice v. BKP, Inc. Ella Bliss Beauty Bar LLC Ella
Colo.Sep 2023
Settlement
Paul
Unknown CourtMar 1899

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.</p> <p>This action was commenced in a justice’s court in Saline Township, Saline County, Arkansas, by Charles Paul against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas, and owning and operating a railroad within that State, to recover $21.80 due him as a laborer, and a penalty of $1.25 per day for failure to pay him what was due him when he was discharged. The case, was carried by appeal to the Circuit Court of. Saline County and there tried de novo. Defendant demurred to so much of the complaint as sought. to recover the penalty on the ground that the act of the general assembly of Arkansas entitled “ An act to provide for the protection of servants and employés of railroads,” approved March 25,. ,1889, Acts Ark. 1889, 76, which provided therefor, was in violation of articles five and fourteen of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and also in violation of the constitution of the State of Arkansas. The demurrer was overruled, and defendant answered, setting up certain matters not material here, and reiterating in its third paragraph the objection that the act was unconstitutional and void. To this paragraph plaintiff demurred, and the demurrer was sustainéd. The case was then heard by the court, the parties, having. waived a trial by jury, and the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum claimed and the penalty at the rate of daily wages from the daté of the discharge until the date of the commencement of the suit, and entered judgment accordingly. Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas, which affirmed the judgment, 64 Arkansas, 83, and this writ of error was then brought. .</p> <p>The act-in question is as follows:</p> <p>“ SectioN 1. Whenever any railroad company or any company, corporation or person engaged in the business of operating or constructing any railroa

Plaintiff Win
In re Bank of America Wage & Hour Employment Litigation
D. Kan.Sep 2012
Settlement
Elk Run Coal Company, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor
D.D.C.Aug 2011
Mixed Result
In re Bank of America Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litigation
D. Kan.Jul 2011
Settlement

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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.