No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter or motion by August 6, 2021, addressing the fairness and reasonableness of a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act case, consistent with Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.
Restaurant Worker Sues for Unpaid Wages
Marquez de la Cruz filed a lawsuit against Estrellita Poblana, Inc., a restaurant company, claiming the employer violated federal wage and hour laws. The worker alleged that the restaurant failed to pay proper wages as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which sets minimum wage and overtime rules for most employees.
The case was filed in federal court in New York's Southern District in July 2021. The court records show this involved typical wage theft claims - situations where employers don't pay workers what they're legally owed. However, the final outcome of this case isn't available in the court documents.
What This Means for Workers:
This case highlights workers' rights to challenge employers who don't follow wage laws. The Fair Labor Standards Act protects most employees by requiring minimum wage payments and overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a week. Restaurant workers are particularly vulnerable to wage violations, including unpaid overtime, illegal tip pooling, or being paid below minimum wage.
Workers who believe their employer has shorted their pay can file complaints with the Department of Labor or pursue lawsuits in federal court to recover unpaid wages.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Marquez de la Cruz v. Estrellita Poblana, Inc. 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.