No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court approved a settlement agreement whereby the defendant agreed to pay $290,000 to resolve FLSA and New York Labor Law wage-and-hour claims brought by the named and opt-in plaintiffs. The settlement was approved as fair and reasonable, with plaintiffs receiving $188,895.72 after attorney's fees and costs.
Pena v. NB Network Solutions Inc.
What Happened
An employee named Pena sued NB Network Solutions Inc., claiming the company failed to pay workers proper wages. The lawsuit involved violations of federal wage laws and New York state labor regulations, allegations that the employer didn't follow rules about how much workers should be paid.
What the Court Decided
A federal court in New York approved a settlement in May 2020 where the company agreed to pay $290,000 to resolve the wage dispute. After paying attorney fees and court costs, workers received approximately $188,895.72 total. The judge determined this settlement was fair and reasonable for both sides.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case demonstrates that employees can successfully challenge wage theft in court. When companies violate wage laws, workers have legal options to recover unpaid money. Even though the full settlement amount went partially to lawyers, employees still recovered substantial compensation. The ruling reinforces that employers must follow wage-and-hour laws, and workers can hold them accountable.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
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.