Mann v. Value Care RX Inc.
Case Details
- Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
- 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, with the Court approving a $40,000 settlement allocation to the plaintiff for his FLSA claims, plus attorney's fees and costs, resulting in dismissal with prejudice.
What This Ruling Means
Mann v. Value Care RX Inc. Settlement Summary
What Happened
A worker filed a lawsuit against Value Care RX Inc., claiming the company failed to pay proper wages under federal labor law. The worker alleged wage theft—meaning the employer either underpaid him or didn't compensate him for all hours worked.
What the Court Decided
Rather than go to trial, both sides agreed to settle the dispute. The company paid the worker $40,000 in damages to resolve his wage claims. The settlement also covered the worker's attorney fees and legal costs. Once the worker received this payment, the case was dismissed and closed.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case demonstrates that workers can hold employers accountable for wage violations. If you believe your employer has underpaid you or failed to compensate you fairly, you may have legal rights to recover lost wages. Workers don't always need to win at trial—employers sometimes choose to settle rather than fight these claims in court. If you suspect wage theft, consider documenting your hours and speaking with an employment attorney about your options.
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.