Stephens v. One Touch Direct, LLC
Case Details
- Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
- Labor: Fair Standards
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Unknown
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- settlement
- State
- Florida
- Circuit
- Eleventh Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The parties settled a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action alleging unpaid overtime violations. Plaintiff Ian Stephens received $636.37 in back wages, and his counsel received $1,908.63 in attorney's fees and costs. The case was dismissed with prejudice.
What This Ruling Means
Stephens v. One Touch Direct, LLC Settlement Summary
What Happened
Ian Stephens sued his employer, One Touch Direct, LLC, claiming the company failed to pay him overtime wages he had earned. This type of case can include multiple employees with similar complaints, allowing workers to join together in court.
What the Court Decided
The company and Stephens reached a settlement agreement instead of going to trial. Stephens received $636.37 in back wages—money owed for work he had already completed. The company also paid $1,908.63 to cover his lawyer's fees and court costs. The case was dismissed, meaning it is now closed and cannot be refiled.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case demonstrates that workers can successfully challenge employers who don't pay required overtime. Even when disputes are settled before trial, employees can recover the wages they earned. If you believe your employer owes you overtime pay, you have the right to take legal action. Workers should keep detailed records of hours worked and speak with an employment attorney if they suspect wage theft.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
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.