Diaz v. Rockland Gardens Associates
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
- consent decree
- State
- New York
- Circuit
- Second Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Plaintiff and defendant reached a settlement agreement approved by the court whereby defendant agreed to pay $35,000 to resolve plaintiff's FLSA and New York Labor Law wage and hour claims, with plaintiff receiving a net amount of $23,023.15 after attorney fees and costs.
What This Ruling Means
Diaz v. Rockland Gardens Associates Settlement
What Happened
An employee named Diaz filed a lawsuit against Rockland Gardens Associates, claiming the company failed to pay wages owed according to federal and New York state wage laws. The dispute involved unpaid wages and violations of labor standards that protect workers' right to fair compensation.
What the Court Decided
Rather than go to trial, both sides reached a settlement agreement that the court approved. Rockland Gardens Associates agreed to pay $35,000 to resolve the wage theft claims. After attorney fees and costs were paid, Diaz received $23,023.15.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case reinforces that workers can take legal action when employers fail to pay earned wages. The settlement demonstrates that courts will hold employers accountable for wage violations under federal and state labor laws. If you believe your employer owes you unpaid wages, you have legal protections and options to recover what you've earned, even if the final amount goes partially to legal costs.
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.