No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court granted final approval of a $1.2 million class action settlement for approximately 1,600 parking attendants and other workers who alleged wage and hour violations under the FLSA and New York Labor Law. The court awarded $300,000 in attorneys' fees and $6,360.74 in expenses to class counsel.
De La Cruz v. Manhattan Parking Group LLC Settlement Summary
What Happened
Approximately 1,600 parking attendants and other workers sued Manhattan Parking Group LLC, claiming the company violated federal and state wage laws. The workers alleged they were not paid properly for their work—a practice known as wage theft.
What the Court Decided
The court approved a settlement requiring Manhattan Parking Group to pay $1.2 million to the workers who were harmed. This money will be distributed among the roughly 1,600 employees in the class action lawsuit. The court also required the company to pay $300,000 to the workers' lawyers and cover $6,360.74 in court expenses.
Why This Matters
This case shows that workers can band together to challenge unfair pay practices, even against large employers. The settlement provides financial recovery for employees who were underpaid. It also sends a message to other employers that wage violations can result in significant financial penalties, encouraging companies to follow wage and hour laws properly.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in De La Cruz v. Manhattan Parking Group LLC d/b/a Manhattan Parking Group 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.