Skip to main content

Santiago v. Sheridan

D.R.I.April 12, 2024No. 1:19-cv-00591
Plaintiff WinRome Family Corporation$65,223.96 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil Rights: Other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion hearing

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationWage Theft

Outcome

Plaintiff Kim Robertson prevailed on her FEPA (Fair Employment Practices Act) discrimination claim against Rome Family Corporation and was awarded back pay of $33,909.63 plus interest, along with reasonable attorneys' fees and costs totaling $31,314.83.

What This Ruling Means

**Worker Wins Discrimination Case Against Rome Family Corporation** Kim Robertson sued her former employer, Rome Family Corporation, claiming she faced workplace discrimination and had wages stolen from her. Robertson filed her case under the Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA), which protects workers from unfair treatment based on characteristics like race, gender, or age. The court ruled in Robertson's favor, finding that Rome Family Corporation did discriminate against her and owed her money. The judge awarded Robertson $33,909.63 in back pay plus interest – money she should have earned but didn't receive due to the company's illegal actions. The court also ordered the company to pay an additional $31,314.83 to cover Robertson's attorney fees and legal costs, bringing the total judgment to $65,223.96. This ruling matters for workers because it shows that courts will hold employers accountable for discrimination and wage theft. When companies violate employment laws, workers can recover not just their lost wages, but also the costs of fighting for their rights in court. This helps level the playing field and makes it financially possible for workers to challenge unfair treatment without bearing all the legal expenses themselves.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.