Santiago v. JS Discount City Corp.
Case Details
- Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
- 710 Labor: Fair Standards
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Unknown
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- consent decree
- State
- New York
- Circuit
- Second Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The parties reached a settlement approved by the court whereby Defendants agreed to pay $12,000 total: $7,476 to Plaintiff and $3,747 in attorney's fees plus $787 in costs. The settlement resolved Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims for unpaid wages and wage-statement violations.
What This Ruling Means
Santiago v. JS Discount City Corp. - Plain English Summary
What Happened
Santiago sued JS Discount City Corp., claiming the company failed to pay her all the wages she earned and violated rules about providing wage statements to employees. She also claimed she was fired wrongfully in connection with these issues.
What the Court Decided
The case was settled out of court with the judge's approval. The company agreed to pay $12,000 total: $7,476 went directly to Santiago for her unpaid wages, while $3,747 covered her attorney's fees and $787 covered court costs.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case reinforces that employers must pay workers for all hours worked and provide proper wage documentation. Workers who believe their employer has stolen wages or retaliated against them for raising pay concerns can pursue legal claims. Settlement outcomes like this one show that courts take wage theft seriously and will hold companies accountable, even when cases don't go to trial.
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.