No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The parties reached a settlement agreement approved by the court in which Whitman Consulting Organization agreed to pay a gross settlement amount of $40,000 to resolve Fair Labor Standards Act claims involving disputed overtime compensation and per diem payment calculations. The net settlement amount to plaintiffs was $16,822.31 after attorneys' fees and costs.
Robertson v. Whitman Consulting Organization, Inc. – Settlement Summary
What Happened
An employee named Robertson sued Whitman Consulting Organization, claiming the company failed to pay proper overtime compensation and meal allowances (per diem payments) as required by federal law. This type of underpayment is commonly called wage theft.
What the Court Decided
The parties agreed to settle the dispute rather than proceed to trial. Whitman Consulting agreed to pay $40,000 total to resolve the case. After paying attorney fees and court costs, the workers received $16,822.31.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case demonstrates that employees can successfully challenge employers over unpaid overtime and meal allowances. Even though the settlement amount was reduced by legal fees, workers still recovered money they weren't originally paid. The ruling sends a message that companies cannot ignore federal wage laws without facing financial consequences. If you believe your employer hasn't paid you correctly for overtime or required meal breaks, this case shows the legal system can help recover those lost wages.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Robertson from the same court.
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.