Estimating unpaid wages
Azoulay v. Santiago Alonso Vazquez
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Moshe Azoulay has asked the Supreme Court to review a wage case brought by Santiago Alonso Vazquez and three other workers, arguing that courts should not shift who must prove unpaid work or estimate individual wage losses without first finding evidence of unpaid work for each period.
- What's at stake
- The dispute over how the four workers’ individual wage losses may be proved remains unresolved.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
He says payroll, wage, and weekly tip records, along with a state rule on evidence and weekly tip-allowance records, matter to that question.
Azoulay argues courts should not shift who must prove unpaid work or estimate each worker’s losses without evidence of unpaid work for each time period; he points to payroll, wage and weekly tip records and a state rule requiring substantial evidence and weekly recording of any tip allowance.
Question presented
Whether Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946), and Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016), permit burden shifting and extrapolation of individual wage damages without a period-specific finding that the employees first produced evidence of uncompensated work sufficient to support a just and reasonable inference, particularly where contemporaneous payroll, wage, and weekly tip records exist and the governing state regulation requires substantial evidence and weekly recording of any tip allowance.
What happens next
The Court must decide whether to hear the case. No argument or decision window is set before the Court agrees to review it.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.