Wage & Hour Law

New Jersey Workers Can Pursue Wage Claims Without Class Certification

July 31, 2026 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last updated July 29, 2026 · Reviewed by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A New Jersey appeals court has confirmed that a group of underpaid workers can pursue their wage claims together without first satisfying the demanding requirements of a class action. In Martinez v. T. Slack Environmental Services, Inc., approved for publication on June 29, 2026, the Appellate Division held that the state’s Wage and Hour Law (WHL) and Prevailing Wage Act bigstock-130097849 (PWA) authorize filing representative actions on behalf of a group of employees without having to file a class action lawsuit or follow class-certification rules.

The practical effect is direct. One employee may bring a lawsuit seeking unpaid overtime, minimum wage or prevailing wages on behalf of similarly situated coworkers by asking the court to designate a representative, and the group does not have to be certified as a class under New Jersey Court Rule 4:32-1. That removes a hurdle that comparable federal wage and hour laws still impose. Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. represents New Jersey employees in wage and hour disputes, and rulings like this one shape how those cases are built.

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules Undocumented Workers Can Recover Unpaid Wages

April 13, 2026 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

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.

NJ Supreme Court Holds Commission Are “Wages” Under the State’s Wage Payment Law

March 18, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a landmark decision on March 17, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Rosalyn Musker v. Suuchi, Inc. that commissions are unequivocally considered “wages” under the NJ Wage Payment Law (WPL). This ruling strengthens protections for New Jersey employees, ensuring employers cannot evade their obligation to pay earned commissions.

The Facts of the Case

Plaintiff Rosalyn Ms. Musker was employed by Suuchi, Inc., a company specializing in software subscriptions for apparel manufacturers. Initially hired for administrative duties with an annual salary of $80,000, Ms. Musker transitioned to a sales role in February 2020. In this capacity, she was eligible for commissions under Suuchi’s Sales Commission Plan (SCP), which incentivized sales based on Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR).

In March 2020, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, Suuchi expanded its product line to include Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Suuchi offered commissions to employees for PPE sales, as outlined in internal communications.

Supreme Court Rules on FLSA Exemptions in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera

January 22, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a major decision impacting employment law across the nation, the United States Supreme Court ruled in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard governs the employer’s burden of proving an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The ruling clarifies the evidentiary burden employers must meet and reinforces protections for workers who depend on fair pay and overtime compensation.

The Facts of the Case

Faustino Sanchez Carrera, a sales representative for E.M.D. Sales, Inc., filed a lawsuit alleging the company violated the FLSA by failing to pay him overtime wages. Mr. Carrera regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but E.M.D. Sales claimed he was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements under the “outside sales exemption.”

Court Addresses When Commissions are Covered by Wage Payment Law

July 1, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The New Jersey Wage Payment Law (“WPL”) is an important employment law that requires employers to pay employees their wages on time. Since August 2019, the WPL has entitled employees whose employers fail to pay them on time to recover not only their unpaid wages, but also up to 200% of that amount as liquidated damages plus their attorney’s fees.

One question that has been coming up with increasing frequency is when commissions are wages that are subject to the WPL, and thus when unpaid commissions (and belatedly paid commissions) are subject to the liquidated damages and attorney’s fee provisions.

The WPL defines wages to include at least some commissions, as follows:

Overtime Exemptions Only Apply to Salaried Employees

March 1, 2023 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled that, no matter how much an employee earns per year, the primary exemptions to federal overtime pay requirement do not apply unless the employee is guaranteed to receive at least $455 per week for any week in which he or she performed any work for the employer.

Michael Hewitt worked for Helix Energy Solutions Group as a “toolpusher” on an offshore rig. Helix paid him a flat fee for each day he worked. Mr. Hewitt worked for Helix for four consecutive weeks, typically 12 hours per day for seven days per week, followed by four weeks off. Although Helix did not pay him for the four week periods when he was not working, Mr. Hewitt earned over $200,000 per year. Even though Mr. Hewitt regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, Helix never paid him an overtime premium.

Mr. Hewitt sued Helix under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), a federal law that requires employers to pay covered employees receive overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours per week.

Is it a Bonus or is it a Tip: When Must Payments from Third Parties be Counted When Calculating Overtime Pay?

September 10, 2019 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The Third Circuit recently addressed when a bonus an employee receives from someone other than his or her employer counts toward the employee’s “regular hourly rate” of pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

The FLSA is a federal law that, among other things, requires employers to pay most non-exempt employees time-and-a-half when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek. As a result, the higher the employee’s regular hourly rate, the higher the overtime pay premium the employee is entitled to receive.

The case involves employees of Bristol Excavating Inc., an excavation contractor, who work at sites owned by another company, Talisman Energy Inc. Since the employees work 12 ½ hour shifts every day for two straight weeks, followed by a week off, they routinely work substantial overtime hours.

New Jersey Enacts Powerful New Wage & Hour Law Protections

August 6, 2019 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Today, New Jersey’s Acting Governor Sheila Oliver signed an amendment to New Jersey’s wage and hour laws that makes several extremely important improvements.

The amendment impacts several New Jersey laws, most importantly the Wage & Hour Law (“WHL”) and the Wage Payment Act (“WPA”). The WHL is a statute that requires employers to pay employees who do not fall within an exemption minimum wage ($10 per hour in 2019) and time-and-half when they work more than 40 hours in any particular workweek. The WPA is a law that requires employers to pay employees on time, and typically at least twice per month.

The amendment includes numerous new provisions, all of which go into effect immediately. We have summarized some of the most significant changes below:

Hourly Employees Must be Paid for Short Breaks

January 12, 2018 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires employers to pay employees for breaks during the workday that are no longer than 20 minutes long.

American Future Systems, which does business as Progressive Business Publications, publishes and sells business publications. Progressive pays its sales representatives by the hour, plus bonuses based on how much they sell, for the time they are logged onto their work computers. Most of Progressive’s employees are paid minimum wage.

In the past, Progressive allowed its employees to take two paid fifteen-minute breaks per day. But in 2009, the company implemented what it called a “flex time” policy. Under this policy, employees were permitted to log off of their computers whenever they wanted, for as long as they wanted, as long as they worked the agreed-upon total number of hours per week. But under this new policy, Progressive did not pay employees if they logged off of their computers for more than 90 seconds. In other words, it stopped paying them for breaks that lasted more than 90 seconds.

Exotic Dancer Can Bring Overtime Claim in Court Despite Arbitration Agreement

September 14, 2017 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a recent ruling, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that an arbitration agreement did not prohibit an exotic dancer from pursuing her overtime and minimum wage claims in court.

Alissa Moon worked at the Breathless Men’s Club, which is in Rahway, New Jersey. The Club treated her as an independent contractor, rather than an employee. In fact, she had to agree to rent space from the Club where she could perform, and signed an “Independent Dancer Rental Agreement” which expressly states that she is an independent contractor.

That agreement also includes the following arbitration provision: