Ruby Tuesdays Inc Tip Credit Lawsuit
Servers for Ruby Tuesdays, Inc. are suing for minimum wage violations.
- Who are the defendants
- What is the case about?
- What court is the case filed in?
- Should I fear retaliation?
- Where can I go to get answers to my questions?
- Who are the lawyers representing?
- How much can I expect to get?
- Will I have to pay any legal fees or costs?
- What is the status of the case?
Ruby Tuesdays, Inc. Tennessee corporation which operates restaurants around the country, including in Connecticut.
Minimum Wage. We claim in this lawsuit that Ruby Tuesdays violated Connecticut minimum wage laws with regard to its servers.
Connecticut. This case is filed in United States District Court, District of Connecticut in Waterbury.
No. It is illegal to retaliate against an employee who joins a lawsuit like this. If you experience retaliation, we will help you.
Call us. You are always welcome to call us at Hayber Law Firm who will do their best to answer your questions. Our number is 860-522-8888.
Hayber Law Firm, LLC. The servers who brought this lawsuit are being represented by the Hayber Law Firm. We are experienced lawyers and have successfully handled cases like this in the past.
It depends. We claim that servers should be paid twice the amount of full minimum wage for all hours worked, minus what Ruby Tuesdays has already paid the servers.
No. We have agreed to work on this case on a “contingency” basis which means that our fee, and reimbursement for our costs, will come, if at all, out of any settlement. The court will closely supervise our fee petition and ensure that it is fair to the class.
IX. What is the status of the case?
The following represents the status of the case as of the date indicated:
DATE COURT FILING DESCRIPTION
January 19th, 2016
This is the lawsuit itself which includes the detailed allegations of wrongdoing.
|November 17th, 2016||Order||This court order assigned the case to a settlement conference and set various deadlines.|
|May 5th, 2017||Case Stayed||The court ordered that the case be stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on whether class action waivers by employers are illegal. The Court’s order is attached.
It has left the door open, however, to revive that part of the case for servers who worked between May 27, 2014 and September 30, 2015 because they were not given the class action wavier policy. It wrote:
“The Court will consider a request to adjudicate this motion or an amended motion if the Court has approved an amendment to the complaint to add one or more representative plaintiffs who were employed at the defendant as servers in the period between 5/27/14 and 9/30/15.”
Those servers can come forward and join the case.