Outcome
Plaintiff Kim prevailed on default judgment and was awarded $233,646.92 in unpaid overtime wages, $233,646.92 in liquidated damages, $10,000 for wage statement violations, prejudgment interest, $8,768.75 in attorneys' fees, and $782 in costs for FLSA and New York Labor Law violations.
What This Ruling Means
**Kim v. Superior Cafe Corp. - Employment Case Summary**
This case involved a worker named Kim who filed a lawsuit against Superior Cafe Corp., claiming the restaurant company failed to pay proper wages. Kim alleged wage theft violations, meaning the employer may have withheld earned wages, failed to pay minimum wage, or didn't provide required overtime compensation.
Unfortunately, the court's final decision in this case is not available from the provided information. The case was filed in federal court in New York's Southern District in February 2022, but the outcome remains unclear. No damage amounts have been reported, which could mean the case is still ongoing, was settled privately, or was dismissed.
**What This Means for Workers:**
Even without knowing the final outcome, this case highlights that workers have legal options when employers don't pay them properly. Restaurant workers are particularly vulnerable to wage theft, including unpaid overtime, withheld tips, or below-minimum wage compensation. Workers who believe their employer has stolen wages can file lawsuits in federal court to recover what they're owed. It's important to keep detailed records of hours worked and wages received, as this documentation becomes crucial evidence in wage theft cases.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.