Santos de Oliveira v. Scores Holding Company Inc.
Case Details
- Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
- 710 Labor: Fair Standards
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Unknown
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- summary judgment
- State
- New York
- Circuit
- Second Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Plaintiff employee prevailed on claims for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide tip-credit notice, failure to pay spread-of-hours wages, and liquidated damages. The court denied defendant's motion for reconsideration of the earlier summary judgment decision in plaintiff's favor.
What This Ruling Means
Santos de Oliveira v. Scores Holding Company Inc.
What Happened
An employee named Santos de Oliveira sued his employer, Club Azure LLC, over unpaid wages. He claimed the company failed to pay him overtime, didn't properly notify him about tip deductions from his paycheck, and didn't compensate him for irregular work schedules (when hours were spread throughout the day).
What the Court Decided
The court ruled in favor of the employee. The judge found that the employer violated wage laws by not paying overtime, failing to provide required notices about tip deductions, and not paying the extra compensation owed for split shifts. The employer's request to reconsider this decision was denied.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case reinforces that employers must follow wage laws strictly. Workers have the right to receive overtime pay, clear information about any deductions from their paychecks, and proper compensation for unusual work schedules. If an employer violates these rules, workers can take legal action and potentially win their case. The ruling shows courts take wage theft seriously.
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.