Chowdhury v. Shuvo
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
Court approved settlement of FLSA and New York Labor Law wage claims for $65,000 total, with plaintiffs Chowdhury and DeGraaff receiving $17,500 and $32,500 respectively, plus attorney's fees of $14,387.14 and costs of $612.86.
What This Ruling Means
Chowdhury v. Shuvo Settlement Summary
What Happened
Two workers, Chowdhury and DeGraaff, filed a wage theft lawsuit against their employer, Shahrish Shuvo Engineering P.C., in New York. They claimed the company failed to pay them the wages they were legally owed under federal and state labor laws.
What the Court Decided
In July 2023, the court approved a settlement agreement. The employer agreed to pay $65,000 total to resolve the wage claims. Chowdhury received $17,500, and DeGraaff received $32,500. The remaining money ($14,387.14) went to the workers' attorneys to cover legal fees, with an additional $612.86 for court costs.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that workers have legal protections against wage theft. When employers violate federal Fair Labor Standards Act rules or New York labor laws, workers can take legal action and recover the money they're owed. Winning settlements like this one demonstrates that courts take wage violations seriously and will hold employers accountable.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
More Rulings in This Case
Other orders and opinions in Chowdhury from the same court.
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.