No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The parties settled their Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The court approved the settlement agreement as fair and reasonable, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Restaurant Worker Takes Employer to Court Over Unpaid Wages
This case involved a worker named Marquez de la Cruz who sued their employer, Estrellita Poblana, Inc. (a restaurant), claiming the company failed to pay proper wages. The worker alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is the federal law that sets minimum wage and overtime requirements for most employees.
The worker brought what's called a "wage and hour" claim, essentially arguing that the restaurant didn't follow federal rules about paying workers correctly. This could involve issues like not paying minimum wage, not paying overtime for hours worked beyond 40 per week, or other wage violations.
Unfortunately, the specific outcome of this case isn't available in the court records provided, so we don't know whether the worker won or lost, or if the case was settled out of court.
What This Means for Workers:
This case illustrates that restaurant workers have legal options when employers don't pay them properly. The Fair Labor Standards Act protects most workers' right to minimum wage and overtime pay. If you believe your employer isn't paying you correctly, you can file a complaint with the Department of Labor or potentially sue in federal court, as this worker did.
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.