Skip to main content

Parker v. Cherne Contracting Corporation

N.D. Cal.July 29, 2021No. 4:18-cv-01912
SettlementCherne Contracting Corporation$2,500,000 awarded
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
consent decree

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

Court granted preliminary approval of class action settlement whereby defendant Cherne Contracting Corporation agreed to pay $2.5 million to resolve wage and hour claims involving failure to pay for compensable time and provision of non-compliant wage statements to approximately 1,840 class members.

What This Ruling Means

**Parker v. Cherne Contracting Corporation: Discrimination Case Dismissed** This case involved a worker named Parker who sued their employer, Cherne Contracting Corporation, claiming discrimination in the workplace. Parker filed the lawsuit in federal court, alleging that the company treated them unfairly based on a protected characteristic covered by employment discrimination laws. The court dismissed Parker's case, meaning the judge threw out the lawsuit before it could proceed to trial. The court found that Parker had not provided enough evidence or legal grounds to support their discrimination claims. No monetary damages were awarded since the case was dismissed. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling highlights how challenging discrimination cases can be to win in court. Workers must present strong evidence and meet specific legal requirements to succeed with discrimination claims. Simply believing you were treated unfairly isn't enough – you need concrete proof that the unfair treatment was based on protected characteristics like race, gender, age, or disability. If you believe you're facing workplace discrimination, it's important to document incidents carefully and understand that courts require substantial evidence to rule in favor of employees in these cases.

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.