No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Two plaintiffs settled Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims against NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC and Thomas Auringer. Harding received $8,589.11 and Powis received $7,983.00, with attorney fees and expenses paid from the settlement amounts.
Harding v. NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC: Workers Settle Wage Claims
This case involved workers at NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC who claimed their employer violated federal wage and hour laws. The employees alleged the company failed to properly pay them according to the Fair Labor Standards Act, which sets rules for minimum wage, overtime pay, and other wage protections for workers.
What the Court Decided:
The case never went to trial. Instead, both sides reached a private settlement agreement in December 2020. The specific terms of the settlement were not made public, so the amount of money involved or other details are unknown.
Why This Matters for Workers:
This case shows that employees can challenge employers when they believe their wages aren't being paid correctly under federal law. Even when cases settle out of court, workers can still achieve results without going through a lengthy trial process. The Fair Labor Standards Act gives workers important rights to proper pay, overtime compensation, and other wage protections. If workers believe their employer is violating these rules, they have legal options available to seek compensation and ensure proper payment going forward.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Harding from the same court.
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.