No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Jury found defendants violated Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law; Third Circuit affirmed on liability but reversed dismissal of attorneys' fees claim; on remand, district court granted plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from dismissal and allowed plaintiff opportunity to file fee petition.
Accurso v. Infra-Red Services, Inc.
What Happened
An employee named Accurso sued Infra-Red Services, Inc., claiming the company violated Pennsylvania's wage laws by not properly paying wages owed.
What the Court Decided
A jury agreed that the company broke Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law. An appeals court upheld this decision. The court initially dismissed Accurso's request for attorney fees, but the appeals court reversed that dismissal. On reconsideration, the lower court allowed Accurso another chance to pursue attorney fees—meaning the company might have to pay her legal costs in addition to owing back wages.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case reinforces that companies cannot simply ignore state wage laws without consequences. It shows that courts take wage theft seriously and may order employers to cover legal fees when workers successfully prove violations. For workers considering wage claims, this demonstrates that the legal system can hold companies accountable and that winning a case might mean the employer pays for your attorney, not just owing back pay.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
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.