Skip to main content

Parker v. Cherne Contracting Corporation

N.D. Cal.November 20, 2020No. 4:18-cv-01912
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

Court denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a wage-and-hour case against a contracting company. Certification was granted for the Wage Statement Subclass but denied for the Waiting Time Subclass due to individualized defenses and lack of commonality.

What This Ruling Means

**Parker v. Cherne Contracting Corporation: Employment Discrimination Case Dismissed** This case involved a worker named Parker who sued their employer, Cherne Contracting Corporation, claiming workplace discrimination. Parker alleged that the company treated them unfairly because of their protected characteristics, which could include factors like race, gender, age, religion, or disability status. The federal court in the Northern District of California dismissed Parker's discrimination lawsuit in November 2020. This means the court threw out the case without awarding any money damages to Parker. The dismissal could have happened for various reasons, such as insufficient evidence to support the discrimination claims, failure to follow proper legal procedures, or the court determining that the alleged conduct didn't violate employment discrimination laws. **What This Means for Workers:** This case highlights the challenges workers face when pursuing discrimination claims in court. Even when employees believe they've experienced unfair treatment, they must present strong evidence and follow specific legal requirements to succeed in a lawsuit. Workers considering discrimination claims should document incidents carefully, report issues through company procedures when possible, and consult with employment attorneys to understand their rights and the strength of their potential case before filing suit.

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.