No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The parties reached a settlement in this FLSA overtime wage case. The court ordered submission of the settlement agreement by September 29, 2023, for judicial approval to ensure fairness and reasonableness under applicable standards.
Collado v. 216 Realty Associates LLC: Settlement Summary
What Happened
An employee named Collado sued 216 Realty Associates LLC over unpaid overtime wages. The case involved claims that the employer failed to properly pay overtime compensation as required by federal wage laws.
What the Court Decided
Rather than going to trial, the two sides reached a settlement agreement. This means both the employee and employer agreed on a resolution without a judge deciding the case. The court required the parties to submit their settlement agreement by September 29, 2023, for a judge to review and approve it. This review ensures the deal is genuinely fair to the employee and follows legal standards.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case illustrates that employees can challenge employers over unpaid overtime and resolve disputes through settlement. While no specific damages amount was reported, settlements in wage cases often result in back pay. The court's approval process protects workers by ensuring any agreed-upon compensation is reasonable. If you believe your employer isn't paying overtime correctly, this case shows you have legal options to recover what you're owed.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Collado 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.