Recent wage and hour victories obtained by DCWageLaw.
Case Name
Summary
Venue
Judge
Decision Date
Download
LexisNexis Link
Barahona v. Rosales (Barahona v. Rosales, No. 15-CV-1381, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171521 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2016))
Under the DCWPCL and DCMWA, damages should be calculated by multiplying actual damages by four, not three.
D.D.C.
James E. Boasberg
09/26/2016
Barney v. Tactical Security Solutions (Barney v. Tactical Sec. Sols., Inc., No. 2020 CA 002016 B, 2020 D.C. Super. LEXIS 25 (D.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 18, 2020))
Plaintiffs are permitted to sue an employer under the FLSA, DCMWA, DCWPCL, and ASSLA without piercing the corporate veil.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Florence Pan
11/18/2020
Calix v. Prestige Building (Calix v. Prestige Building Co., LLC, No. 2020 CA 000729 B, 2020 D.C. Super. LEXIS 21 (D.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 9, 2020))
Plaintiffs may bring a claim under the DCWPCL for Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wages because the DCWPCL itself provides the cause of action by allowing plaintiffs to sue for “promised” wages.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Robert R. Rigsby
10/09/2020
Castaneda v. V&V Constr. (Castaneda v. V&V Constr., LLC, No. 2019 CA 002985 B, 2020 D.C. Super. LEXIS 20 (D.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 7, 2020))
Plaintiffs may bring a claim under the DCWPCL for Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wages because the DCWPCL itself provides the cause of action by allowing plaintiffs to sue for “promised” wages.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Robert R. Rigsby
10/07/2020
DeAquino v. Omni Excavators (DeAquino v. Omni Excavators, Inc., No. 2019 CA 003842 B, 2019 D.C. Super. LEXIS 22 (D.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 3, 2019))
Plaintiffs may pursue their claims for unpaid overtime wages under the DCWPCL; the DCMWA does not provide the exclusive state law remedy for overtime violations.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Hiram E. Puig-Lugo
09/03/2019
Denson v. DC Rest. Holdings (Denson v. DC Rest. Holdings, Inc., No. 19-cv-01609 (DLF), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206850 (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2021))
Default judgment granted against defendants. Tip credit is an affirmative defense plaintiffs do not have to raise in their complaint.
D.D.C.
Dabney L. Friedrich
10/27/2021
Gallagher v. Eat to the Beat (Gallagher v. Eat to the Beat, Inc., No. 19-CV-3091, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138661 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 2020))
Whether plaintiff is an “employee” within the meaning of the FLSA (and not an independent contractor) is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and dismissal under 12(b)(1) is improper.
D.D.C.
Amy Berman Jackson
08/04/2020
Garcia v. Skanska USA Bldg. (Garcia v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc., 324 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D.D.C. 2018))
Plaintiffs may bring a claim under the FLSA, DCMWA, and DCWPCL for Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wages because the acts themselves provide the cause of action by allowing plaintiffs to sue for “promised” wages.
D.D.C.
Dabney L. Friedrich
08/24/2018
In re Neighbors' Consejo (In re Neighbors’ Consejo, No. 15-00373-SMT, 2020 WL 7348129 (Bankr. D.D.C. Dec. 14, 2020))
Plaintiffs’ counsel may recover attorney’s fees far exceeding the wages recovered by plaintiffs due to the applicable fee-shifting statute and use of Salazar rates; such disparity does not warrant a reduction in fees.
Bankr. D.D.C.
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
12/14/2020
Lima Lucero v. Parkinson Constr. (Lucero v. Parkinson Constr. Co., No. 18-CV-515, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138045 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 2020))
Plaintiffs may recover post-judgment attorney’s fees incurred as a result of post-judgment collection efforts.
D.D.C.
Rudolph Contreras
08/04/2020
Lima Lucero v. Parkinson Constr. (Lucero v. Parkinson Constr. Co., No. 18-CV-515, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109551 (D.D.C. July 1, 2019))
After Plaintiff accepted an offer of Judgment for $16,000.00, the Court awarded Plaintiff $84,893.90 in attorney’s fees and $1,193.92 in costs — the full amount Plaintiff requested. The difference between the amount of damages initially claimed and the amount eventually accepted does not justify a reduction to the amount determined by the lodestar method.
D.D.C.
Rudolph Contreras
07/01/2019
Martinez v. Asian 328 (Martinez v. Asian 328, LLC, 220 F. Supp. 3d 117 (D.D.C. 2016))
The Court is permitted to remove mathematic calculation of unpaid wages from the province of the jury when there is no genuine issue regarding damage calculations; the DCWPCL awards treble damages in addition to unpaid wages.
D.D.C.
G. Michael Harvey
12/08/2016
Martinez v. Asian 328 (Martinez v. Asian 328, LLC, No. 15-CV-1071, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119814 (D.D.C. Sept. 6, 2016))
Plaintiffs may prevail on summary judgment on the issue of whether the individual defendant meets the statutory definition of “employer,” as defined by the FLSA and DCWPCL, without determining defendants’ ultimate liability; the business owner would be individually liable for any judgment rendered against her business.
D.D.C.
G. Michael Harvey
09/06/2016
Montiel v. Makro Svcs. (Montiel v. Makro Services, Inc., No. 2018 CA 006550 B, 2018 D.C. Super. LEXIS 18 (D.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 26, 2018))
Plaintiffs may pursue their claims for unpaid overtime wages under the DCWPCL; the DCMWA does not provide the exclusive state law remedy for overtime violations.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Hiram E. Puig-Lugo
11/26/2018
Moreno v. A. Wash & Assocs. (Moreno v. A. Wash & Assocs., No. 2018 CA 008055 B, 2020 D.C. Super. LEXIS 19 (D.C. Super. Ct. June 17, 2020))
Under the economic reality test and the common law of agency, Plaintiff was an employee, rather than an independent contractor, for purposes of the DCMWA and DCWPCL. Under the six-factor test outlined by the Fourth Circuit in Salinas, Defendants were joint employers of Plaintiff.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Jason Park
06/17/2020
Moreno v. A. Wash & Assocs. (Moreno v. A. Wash & Assocs., No. 2018 CA 008055 B, 2020 D.C. Super. LEXIS 27 (D.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 16, 2020))
Plaintiffs’ counsel may recover attorney’s fees far exceeding the wages recovered by plaintiffs due to the applicable fee-shifting statutes and use of Salazar rates; such disparity does not warrant a reduction in fees.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Jason Park
11/16/2020
Ramirez v. 316 Charles, LLC (Ramirez v. 316 Charles, LLC, No. SAG-19-03252, 2020 WL 7398807 (D. Md. Dec. 17, 2020))
Employers bear the burden of keeping proper records of hours worked and wages paid; the law does not penalize employees when an employer fails to keep proper records and allows Plaintiffs to reasonably estimate.
D. Md.
Stephanie A. Gallagher
12/17/2020
Ramirez v. 316 Charles, LLC (Ramirez v. 316 Charles, LLC, No. SAG-19-03252, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24157 (D. Md. Feb. 9, 2021))
If an employee’s regular rate exceeds the minimum wage, overtime pay must be calculated based on the employee’s regular rate of pay.
D. Md.
Stephanie A. Gallagher
02/09/2021
Diaz v. Coddi-Wes I (Diaz v. Coddi-Wes I, LLC, No. 19-cv-3531 (DLF), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60953 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2022))
Defendants may not bifurcate Plaintiff's work into two jobs and designate one an independent contractor position. Majority of Defendants to be liable as employers for any unpaid overtime pursuant to the FLSA, DCMWA, and DCWPCL.
D.D.C.
Dabney L. Friedrich
03/31/2022
Ramirez v. Nooshi Capitol Hill, Inc. (Ramirez v. Nooshi Capitol Hill, 2019 CA 004510 B, 2022 D.C. Super. LEXIS 12 (D.C. Super. Ct. May 26, 2022))
In a case under the DCMWA and DCWPCL, general allegations regarding hours worked and amounts paid are sufficient to state a claim for relief. Wage and hour claims are not subject to a heightened-pleading standard that requires exacting detail.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Juliet J. McKenna
05/26/2022
Hernandez v. Speight (Hernandez v. Speight, 2024 CAB 002349, 2024 D.C. Super. LEXIS 24 (D.C. Super. Ct. June 6, 2024))
Default judgment under DCWPCL will not be vacated simply because Defendants aver they were not served.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Milton C. Lee, Jr.
06/06/2024
Martinez v. K & S Mgmt. Servs. (Martinez v. K & S Mgmt. Servs., No. 15-cv-223-PWG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25798 (D. Md. Mar. 2, 2016))
Although the Plaintiffs had agreed to their employer's pay scheme, they could still pursue claims for unpaid minimum wages under federal, Maryland, and local county law because the flat rate they had accepted resulted in an hourly rate below the applicable minimum wage rates.
D. Md.
Paul W. Grimm
03/02/2016
Craighead v. Full Citizenship of Md., Inc. (Craighead v. Full Citizenship of Md., Inc., No. 17-cv-595-PX, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174747 (D. Md. Sep. 23, 2020))
Granting judgment to Plaintiffs under the FLSA and the MWPCL for unpaid Montgomery County and Prince George's County minimum wages.
D. Md.
Paula Xinis
09/22/2020
Case Name
Summary
Venue
Judge
Decision Date
Download
LexisNexis Link
Barahona v. Rosales (Barahona v. Rosales, No. 15-CV-1381, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171521 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2016))
Under the DCWPCL and DCMWA, damages should be calculated by multiplying actual damages by four, not three.
D.D.C.
James E. Boasberg
09/26/2016
Barney v. Tactical Security Solutions (Barney v. Tactical Sec. Sols., Inc., No. 2020 CA 002016 B, 2020 D.C. Super. LEXIS 25 (D.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 18, 2020))
Plaintiffs are permitted to sue an employer under the FLSA, DCMWA, DCWPCL, and ASSLA without piercing the corporate veil.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Florence Pan
11/18/2020
Calix v. Prestige Building (Calix v. Prestige Building Co., LLC, No. 2020 CA 000729 B, 2020 D.C. Super. LEXIS 21 (D.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 9, 2020))
Plaintiffs may bring a claim under the DCWPCL for Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wages because the DCWPCL itself provides the cause of action by allowing plaintiffs to sue for “promised” wages.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Robert R. Rigsby
10/09/2020
Castaneda v. V&V Constr. (Castaneda v. V&V Constr., LLC, No. 2019 CA 002985 B, 2020 D.C. Super. LEXIS 20 (D.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 7, 2020))
Plaintiffs may bring a claim under the DCWPCL for Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wages because the DCWPCL itself provides the cause of action by allowing plaintiffs to sue for “promised” wages.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Robert R. Rigsby
10/07/2020
DeAquino v. Omni Excavators (DeAquino v. Omni Excavators, Inc., No. 2019 CA 003842 B, 2019 D.C. Super. LEXIS 22 (D.C. Super. Ct. Sept. 3, 2019))
Plaintiffs may pursue their claims for unpaid overtime wages under the DCWPCL; the DCMWA does not provide the exclusive state law remedy for overtime violations.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Hiram E. Puig-Lugo
09/03/2019
Denson v. DC Rest. Holdings (Denson v. DC Rest. Holdings, Inc., No. 19-cv-01609 (DLF), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206850 (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2021))
Default judgment granted against defendants. Tip credit is an affirmative defense plaintiffs do not have to raise in their complaint.
D.D.C.
Dabney L. Friedrich
10/27/2021
Gallagher v. Eat to the Beat (Gallagher v. Eat to the Beat, Inc., No. 19-CV-3091, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138661 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 2020))
Whether plaintiff is an “employee” within the meaning of the FLSA (and not an independent contractor) is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and dismissal under 12(b)(1) is improper.
D.D.C.
Amy Berman Jackson
08/04/2020
Garcia v. Skanska USA Bldg. (Garcia v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc., 324 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D.D.C. 2018))
Plaintiffs may bring a claim under the FLSA, DCMWA, and DCWPCL for Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wages because the acts themselves provide the cause of action by allowing plaintiffs to sue for “promised” wages.
D.D.C.
Dabney L. Friedrich
08/24/2018
In re Neighbors' Consejo (In re Neighbors’ Consejo, No. 15-00373-SMT, 2020 WL 7348129 (Bankr. D.D.C. Dec. 14, 2020))
Plaintiffs’ counsel may recover attorney’s fees far exceeding the wages recovered by plaintiffs due to the applicable fee-shifting statute and use of Salazar rates; such disparity does not warrant a reduction in fees.
Bankr. D.D.C.
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
12/14/2020
Lima Lucero v. Parkinson Constr. (Lucero v. Parkinson Constr. Co., No. 18-CV-515, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138045 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 2020))
Plaintiffs may recover post-judgment attorney’s fees incurred as a result of post-judgment collection efforts.
D.D.C.
Rudolph Contreras
08/04/2020
Lima Lucero v. Parkinson Constr. (Lucero v. Parkinson Constr. Co., No. 18-CV-515, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109551 (D.D.C. July 1, 2019))
After Plaintiff accepted an offer of Judgment for $16,000.00, the Court awarded Plaintiff $84,893.90 in attorney’s fees and $1,193.92 in costs — the full amount Plaintiff requested. The difference between the amount of damages initially claimed and the amount eventually accepted does not justify a reduction to the amount determined by the lodestar method.
D.D.C.
Rudolph Contreras
07/01/2019
Martinez v. Asian 328 (Martinez v. Asian 328, LLC, 220 F. Supp. 3d 117 (D.D.C. 2016))
The Court is permitted to remove mathematic calculation of unpaid wages from the province of the jury when there is no genuine issue regarding damage calculations; the DCWPCL awards treble damages in addition to unpaid wages.
D.D.C.
G. Michael Harvey
12/08/2016
Martinez v. Asian 328 (Martinez v. Asian 328, LLC, No. 15-CV-1071, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119814 (D.D.C. Sept. 6, 2016))
Plaintiffs may prevail on summary judgment on the issue of whether the individual defendant meets the statutory definition of “employer,” as defined by the FLSA and DCWPCL, without determining defendants’ ultimate liability; the business owner would be individually liable for any judgment rendered against her business.
D.D.C.
G. Michael Harvey
09/06/2016
Montiel v. Makro Svcs. (Montiel v. Makro Services, Inc., No. 2018 CA 006550 B, 2018 D.C. Super. LEXIS 18 (D.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 26, 2018))
Plaintiffs may pursue their claims for unpaid overtime wages under the DCWPCL; the DCMWA does not provide the exclusive state law remedy for overtime violations.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Hiram E. Puig-Lugo
11/26/2018
Moreno v. A. Wash & Assocs. (Moreno v. A. Wash & Assocs., No. 2018 CA 008055 B, 2020 D.C. Super. LEXIS 19 (D.C. Super. Ct. June 17, 2020))
Under the economic reality test and the common law of agency, Plaintiff was an employee, rather than an independent contractor, for purposes of the DCMWA and DCWPCL. Under the six-factor test outlined by the Fourth Circuit in Salinas, Defendants were joint employers of Plaintiff.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Jason Park
06/17/2020
Moreno v. A. Wash & Assocs. (Moreno v. A. Wash & Assocs., No. 2018 CA 008055 B, 2020 D.C. Super. LEXIS 27 (D.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 16, 2020))
Plaintiffs’ counsel may recover attorney’s fees far exceeding the wages recovered by plaintiffs due to the applicable fee-shifting statutes and use of Salazar rates; such disparity does not warrant a reduction in fees.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Jason Park
11/16/2020
Ramirez v. 316 Charles, LLC (Ramirez v. 316 Charles, LLC, No. SAG-19-03252, 2020 WL 7398807 (D. Md. Dec. 17, 2020))
Employers bear the burden of keeping proper records of hours worked and wages paid; the law does not penalize employees when an employer fails to keep proper records and allows Plaintiffs to reasonably estimate.
D. Md.
Stephanie A. Gallagher
12/17/2020
Ramirez v. 316 Charles, LLC (Ramirez v. 316 Charles, LLC, No. SAG-19-03252, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24157 (D. Md. Feb. 9, 2021))
If an employee’s regular rate exceeds the minimum wage, overtime pay must be calculated based on the employee’s regular rate of pay.
D. Md.
Stephanie A. Gallagher
02/09/2021
Diaz v. Coddi-Wes I (Diaz v. Coddi-Wes I, LLC, No. 19-cv-3531 (DLF), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60953 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2022))
Defendants may not bifurcate Plaintiff's work into two jobs and designate one an independent contractor position. Majority of Defendants to be liable as employers for any unpaid overtime pursuant to the FLSA, DCMWA, and DCWPCL.
D.D.C.
Dabney L. Friedrich
03/31/2022
Ramirez v. Nooshi Capitol Hill, Inc. (Ramirez v. Nooshi Capitol Hill, 2019 CA 004510 B, 2022 D.C. Super. LEXIS 12 (D.C. Super. Ct. May 26, 2022))
In a case under the DCMWA and DCWPCL, general allegations regarding hours worked and amounts paid are sufficient to state a claim for relief. Wage and hour claims are not subject to a heightened-pleading standard that requires exacting detail.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Juliet J. McKenna
05/26/2022
Hernandez v. Speight (Hernandez v. Speight, 2024 CAB 002349, 2024 D.C. Super. LEXIS 24 (D.C. Super. Ct. June 6, 2024))
Default judgment under DCWPCL will not be vacated simply because Defendants aver they were not served.
D.C. Sup. Ct.
Milton C. Lee, Jr.
06/06/2024
Martinez v. K & S Mgmt. Servs. (Martinez v. K & S Mgmt. Servs., No. 15-cv-223-PWG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25798 (D. Md. Mar. 2, 2016))
Although the Plaintiffs had agreed to their employer's pay scheme, they could still pursue claims for unpaid minimum wages under federal, Maryland, and local county law because the flat rate they had accepted resulted in an hourly rate below the applicable minimum wage rates.
D. Md.
Paul W. Grimm
03/02/2016
Craighead v. Full Citizenship of Md., Inc. (Craighead v. Full Citizenship of Md., Inc., No. 17-cv-595-PX, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174747 (D. Md. Sep. 23, 2020))
Granting judgment to Plaintiffs under the FLSA and the MWPCL for unpaid Montgomery County and Prince George's County minimum wages.
Gallery Pl.—Chinatown 