The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous decision reinforcing that undocumented workers are entitled to recover unpaid wages for work they already performed. The ruling in Lopez v. Marmic LLC, decided on March 19, 2026, makes clear that an employer cannot avoid paying minimum wage and overtime pay simply because the worker lacks immigration
authorization. For employees across New Jersey who have been denied proper compensation, the decision is a significant affirmation that many state wage and hour protections apply regardless of their immigration status.
The Facts
Sergio Lopez was hired in June 2015 as the superintendent of two buildings in Newark owned by Marmic LLC, a realty management company. When Mr. Lopez applied for the position, he provided an invalid Social Security number on a W-4 form. Marmic’s owner, Mike Ruane, initially paid Mr. Lopez $400 per week and provided him a basement apartment for which Mr. Lopez agreed to pay $800 per month.
After two weeks, Mr. Ruane discovered the Social Security number Mr. Lopez provided was invalid. Rather than continue to pay his wages, Mr. Ruane told Mr. Lopez that he could not pay him because doing so would be “against the law.” Instead, Mr. Ruane offered to let Mr. Lopez live in the apartment rent-free in exchange for continuing to perform his duties as the superintendent.
New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog






t-setting New Jersey Appellate Division decision is a reminder that courts will look past labels and examine how a PTO policy works in practice to determine whether it complies with the law.

ew Jersey employees looking for guidance from a Bergen County employment lawyer, this case reinforces that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) does not just apply to conduct by immediate supervisors or the company itself. It also extends to actions by decision-makers who participate in or ignore unlawful conduct.
This case serves as an important reminder that employees who experience sexual harassment and retaliation can challenge the employer’s actions under the 
