Cortes v. Diamante Poblano Restaurant 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
- settlement
- State
- New York
- Circuit
- Second Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The parties reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. The court ordered the parties to file a settlement agreement for approval within 30 days, addressing fairness, reasonableness, and attorney's fees.
What This Ruling Means
Cortes v. Diamante Poblano Restaurant Corp.
What Happened
A worker filed a lawsuit against Diamante Poblano Restaurant Corp., claiming the restaurant violated federal wage laws by not paying workers fairly for all hours worked. This type of claim—known as wage theft—is taken seriously under federal labor laws that require employers to pay minimum wage and overtime.
What the Court Decided
Rather than go to trial, the restaurant and the worker agreed to settle the case. The court required both sides to submit a formal settlement agreement within 30 days for judicial approval. The court needed to confirm the settlement was fair and reasonable to the worker, and that attorney's fees were handled appropriately.
Why This Matters
This case reinforces that workers have legal protections against wage theft. Even when cases don't go to trial, courts ensure settlements actually protect workers' rights rather than letting employers off too easily. If you believe your employer hasn't paid you correctly, federal law provides options to seek compensation.
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.