Skip to main content

Gunawan v. Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency

C.D. Cal.January 30, 2014No. Case No. SACV 13-01356-CJC (AGRx)Cited 4 times
Defendant WinKForce, Inc.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Carney
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 Theft

Outcome

The court granted KForce's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's wage and hour claims, finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for time spent interviewing for prospective employment and that KForce properly classified her as a temporary staffing consultant without owing minimum wage or overtime compensation. The court also remanded claims against Workway for lack of jurisdiction.

What This Ruling Means

**Gunawan v. Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency: Employment Discrimination Settlement** This case involved employment discrimination claims brought against Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency. An employee alleged they faced discriminatory treatment in the workplace, though the specific details of the discrimination are not provided in the available information. The case was resolved through a settlement agreement between the parties in 2014. This means both sides agreed to resolve the dispute outside of court rather than going to trial. The terms of the settlement, including any financial compensation, were not disclosed publicly. While no damages amount was reported, this doesn't necessarily mean no money changed hands—settlement terms are often kept confidential. This case matters for workers because it demonstrates that employees can successfully challenge workplace discrimination, even against established employment agencies. Settlement outcomes show that employers may be willing to resolve discrimination claims rather than face the uncertainty and costs of a trial. For workers experiencing discrimination, this case illustrates that pursuing legal action can lead to resolution, even if the specific terms aren't made public. It also reminds employers in the staffing industry that they must maintain non-discriminatory practices in their workplace policies and employee treatment.

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

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

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.