No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Plaintiffs prevailed on unpaid wage claims against Harvey Cleary under FLSA and Maryland wage statutes, with the court finding Harvey Cleary was a joint employer. Harvey Cleary's motion for summary judgment was denied in part, and Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment was granted in part, with damages to be determined.
Aguilar v. David E. Harvey Builders, Inc.
What Happened
Workers employed by David E. Harvey Builders, Inc. sued for unpaid wages and wrongful termination. The case involved claims that the company failed to pay workers properly under federal and Maryland state wage laws.
What the Court Decided
The court ruled in favor of the workers on the unpaid wage claims. The judge found that Harvey Cleary was a "joint employer"—meaning he shared responsibility for wage violations. The court rejected some of the employer's arguments for dismissal and agreed with parts of the workers' claims. However, the court did not immediately decide the exact amount of money owed; that would be determined later.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling is significant because it shows that courts will hold employers accountable for unpaid wages. The "joint employer" finding is particularly important: it means workers can pursue claims against multiple people or entities responsible for their paychecks, not just the main company. This gives workers more options to recover lost wages when employers fail to pay them properly.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Aguilar 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.