Ramirez v. Harishivji 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
- New York
- Circuit
- Second Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The court approved a settlement agreement whereby the defendant employer agreed to pay the plaintiff $10,800 total ($7,200 in damages and $3,600 in attorney's fees and costs) to resolve the plaintiff's FLSA claims for unpaid minimum and overtime wages.
What This Ruling Means
Ramirez v. Harishivji Inc. Settlement Summary
What Happened
Ramirez filed a lawsuit against Harishivji Inc., claiming the company failed to pay required minimum wage and overtime pay. This type of payment violation is called wage theft.
What the Court Decided
Rather than going to trial, both sides reached a settlement agreement. The employer agreed to pay Ramirez a total of $10,800. This included $7,200 in damages (compensation for unpaid wages) plus $3,600 to cover Ramirez's attorney's fees and legal costs. The court approved this settlement in April 2020.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case demonstrates that workers can take legal action when employers don't pay promised wages. Even when cases settle, employers must compensate workers for unpaid compensation plus cover legal expenses. The outcome shows that pursuing wage theft claims can result in meaningful financial recovery. If you believe your employer owes you unpaid wages, this case illustrates that the law provides a path to seek those owed funds through the court system.
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.