Cathy Sypherd v. Lazy Dog Restaurants, LLC
Case Details
- Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
- Civil Rights: Jobs
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Unknown
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- consent decree
- State
- California
- Circuit
- Ninth Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Court granted final approval of a $2.15 million collective and class action settlement for age discrimination claims brought by job applicants 40 and older denied positions at Lazy Dog Restaurants. The settlement provides payments averaging $1,526.15 per participating class member and authorizes up to $645,000 in attorneys' fees.
What This Ruling Means
Cathy Sypherd v. Lazy Dog Restaurants Settlement Explained
What Happened
Cathy Sypherd and other job applicants age 40 and older sued Lazy Dog Restaurants, claiming the company refused to hire them because of their age. Age discrimination in hiring is illegal, but the applicants had to prove the restaurant systematically passed them over for younger candidates.
What the Court Decided
The court approved a $2.15 million settlement. This means Lazy Dog agreed to pay without admitting wrongdoing. About 1,400 applicants who were denied jobs will receive an average of $1,526 each. Attorneys handling the case will receive up to $645,000 in fees.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that courts take age discrimination seriously, even during hiring. If you're 40 or older and believe a company rejected you because of your age, you may have legal options. Class action settlements like this allow many workers to seek compensation together rather than individually, making it more practical to challenge large employers.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 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.