Chavarria v. Pipinos, Inc.
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
- consent decree
- State
- Maryland
- Circuit
- Fourth Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Plaintiff and defendant settled a Fair Labor Standards Act overtime wage dispute. The court approved a settlement providing $22,000 in compensation to the plaintiff, with $8,365.50 awarded for attorneys' fees and costs.
What This Ruling Means
Chavarria v. Pipinos, Inc. — Case Summary
What Happened
An employee filed a lawsuit against Pipinos, Inc., claiming the restaurant failed to pay proper overtime wages as required by federal law. The worker alleged the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, which sets rules about how employees must be paid for extra hours worked.
What the Court Decided
Rather than go to trial, both sides reached a settlement agreement. The court approved this deal, requiring Pipinos, Inc. to pay the employee $22,000 in compensation for unpaid wages. Additionally, the company had to cover $8,365.50 in the employee's attorney fees and legal costs.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that companies can be held accountable for wage theft. When employers fail to pay overtime correctly, workers have legal options to recover the money owed. This settlement demonstrates that wage disputes can be resolved through the court system, and employees who win these cases can recover both lost wages and the cost of fighting for their rights.
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.