Skip to main content

Flores v. Masterpiece Caterers Corp.

S.D.N.Y.January 27, 2020No. 1:19-cv-04059
Plaintiff WinMasterpiece Caterers Corp$100,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Labor: Fair Standards
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court ruled in favor of Flores, finding Masterpiece Caterers Corp violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages.

What This Ruling Means

I don't have enough information about the Flores v. Masterpiece Caterers Corp. case to provide an accurate summary. The details you've shared only include basic case information (court, filing date, and parties involved) but don't contain the actual facts of the dispute, the court's decision, or the legal reasoning. To write a helpful summary for workers, I would need to know: - What specific employment issue was at stake (wage theft, discrimination, wrongful termination, etc.) - What arguments each side made - How the court ruled and why - What precedent or impact this creates If you can provide the actual court opinion or more detailed information about what happened in this case, I'd be happy to explain it in plain English. Court rulings often contain complex legal language, but the underlying employment issues usually involve situations that many workers can relate to and learn from.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.