No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The parties reached a settlement agreement whereby the employer agreed to pay the employee $1,237.50 in unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages, plus $4,000 in attorney's fees and costs. The court approved the settlement as a fair and reasonable compromise of bona fide FLSA disputes and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Garcia v. G4S Secure Solutions: Settlement Summary
What Happened
Garcia worked for G4S Secure Solutions and claimed the company failed to pay overtime wages owed to him. This is a wage theft dispute—when employers don't properly compensate workers for extra hours worked beyond standard schedules.
What the Court Decided
The parties reached a settlement agreement in 2019 without going to trial. G4S agreed to pay Garcia $1,237.50 for unpaid overtime wages and additional damages. The company also paid $4,000 toward Garcia's attorney's fees and legal costs. A federal judge approved this settlement as fair and reasonable, ending the case.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case reinforces that workers have legal protections against wage theft. Employees can take action when companies don't pay overtime correctly, and courts will enforce these rights. Additionally, successful claims can include attorney's fees, making it more affordable for workers to hire lawyers to pursue wage disputes. The settlement shows that employers may face financial consequences for failing to properly compensate workers for their time.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Garcia 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.