Centeno-Bernuy v. Perry

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the defendant would not suffer any hardship if prevented from making accusations against the plaintiffs to the immigration authorities, and instead would “simply be prevented from continuing to repeat his baseless claims about the plaintiffs to government authorities”
• finding that the employer’s actions after learning of the lawsuit, i.e., “reporting plaintiffs to the INS and making baseless allegations to the government that plaintiffs are terrorists, constitute an adverse employment action.”
• finding that the plaintiffs’ reluctance to appear in court for fear that their employer would have them arrested and deported constituted irreparable harm because it negatively affected plaintiffs’ ability to enforce their rights
• reporting plaintiffs to the immigration authorities and making baseless allegations to the government that plaintiffs are terrorists are adverse employment actions under the FLSA
• finding irreparable harm in retaliation case where, among other facts, plaintiffs were reluctant to appear in court to pursue their rights “because they were afraid that [defendants would] contact authorities and have them arrested and deported”
• “[T]he anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA does not apply only to employers; it applies to ‘any person.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).