On this page
What the court record establishes
The identified consent judgment concerns Alacrity Employment Services and Hawaii Care and Cleaning, District of Hawaii case 1:24-cv-00567. The judge dated it 14 January 2025; it was filed the next day. Paragraph I.Q expressly admits willful misclassification, overtime and time/payroll-record violations during the stated 2021–2024 period. This was an agreed judgment, not a contested trial or a no-admission settlement.
It orders $1.9 million in back wages, $1.9 million in liquidated damages and $50,000 in civil penalties: $3.85 million in total. It also addresses reclassification, accurate records, payroll practices, nonretaliation and supervisor training. Those ordered amounts are not proof of collection or distribution.
Who resolves a disputed hours entry?
The order involved a labour-supplying operation and a cleaning company. In your arrangement, the useful questions are who assigns buildings, changes schedules, sets pay, records hours and can correct an entry. The contract and actual instructions need to agree.
Consider a separate fictional visit: a building-access record suggests a longer visit than payroll shows, but the supervisor points to a signed timesheet. The signature does not explain the discrepancy. The supervisor and payroll reviewer must establish what work occurred and keep the reason for any correction; the worker also needs a route to raise the problem.
Travel between jobs, breaks and pay calculations need the rules applicable to that work. Neither the court’s result nor an access log alone determines the outcome for another staffing or franchise arrangement.
Scope
- Historical identified judgment only; no complete current docket or recovery finding. An apparent installment/date inconsistency remains unresolved, so no payment schedule is stated.
Next step
Check who can correct hours and pay when the supplier, supervisor and worker disagree.
Sources & review notes
U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, via Department of Labor
Passage, dates and research notes
primary · Case 1:24-cv-00567, Document 7, filed January 15 2025; all 17 pages
Defendants admit to willfully violating
Read complete 17-page PDF; signed judicial page 14 also visually inspected. Judicial date is January 14 2025, filing stamp January 15. Explicit admissions p 4; judgment p 11; training/records p 7–10. Payment paragraph contains an apparent date-span/installment-count mismatch; no payment schedule or collection claim is published.
Keep this reading in your learning library.
Progress privacy
Off by default. Without remembering, changes last on this page. If enabled, only public content identifiers and self-reported progress are stored in this browser profile. Anyone using the same profile could see them. No plan inputs or contact details are included. Reset or export in learning settings.
This is a reading aid, not evidence of disclosure delivery, expertise or legal approval.