Mata v. STA Management, 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
- Michigan
- Circuit
- Sixth Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The court approved a $1,950,000 FLSA collective action settlement for delivery drivers alleging minimum wage violations. Plaintiff received approval for attorneys' fees of $650,000 and service awards of $15,000 each to named plaintiffs.
What This Ruling Means
Mata v. STA Management, LLC Settlement Summary
What Happened
Delivery drivers working for STA Management, LLC filed a lawsuit claiming the company failed to pay them minimum wage as required by federal law. Multiple drivers joined together in this case to address the wage theft problem across the company.
What the Court Decided
The court approved a settlement requiring STA Management to pay $1,950,000 to the affected delivery drivers. The company also paid $650,000 in attorney fees to cover legal costs and gave $15,000 each to the main plaintiffs who led the case.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that workers can successfully challenge employers who don't pay minimum wage, even through group lawsuits. The large settlement amount demonstrates that courts take wage theft seriously and will hold companies accountable. For delivery drivers and similar workers, this case illustrates that joining together with coworkers strengthens your ability to recover unpaid wages and that legal help is available to pursue these claims.
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.