Skip to main content

Raudez v. SSMB Pacific Holding Company, Inc.

N.D. Cal.April 6, 2020No. 5:19-cv-02755
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
710 Labor: Fair Standards
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
consent decree

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful TerminationWage TheftFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court approved a stipulated settlement and dismissed the wrongful termination, failure to provide breaks, and failure to pay wages case with prejudice. Each party bears its own fees and costs except as specified in the confidential settlement agreement.

What This Ruling Means

**Worker Settles Wage Dispute with Company** This case involved a worker who claimed that SSMB Pacific Holding Company failed to pay proper wages under federal labor laws. The employee, Raudez, filed a lawsuit alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, which sets rules for minimum wage, overtime pay, and other wage protections. The specific details of what wages were allegedly withheld or underpaid were not disclosed in the court records. The court case was resolved through a settlement agreement between the worker and the company in 2020. This means both sides agreed to resolve the dispute outside of court rather than having a judge make a final decision. The terms of the settlement, including any money paid to the worker, were not made public. This case matters for workers because it shows that employees have legal options when they believe their employer hasn't paid them correctly. The Fair Labor Standards Act protects workers' rights to proper wages and overtime pay. Even when cases don't go to trial, workers can still achieve resolution through settlement negotiations, which can be faster and less expensive than a full court battle.

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

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
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Coleman
7th CircuitJun 2017
Remanded

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.