New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog
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
(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.
The Facts of Martinez v. T. Slack Environmental Services
Juan Martinez worked as an hourly laborer for T. Slack Environmental Services, a small contractor based in New Jersey that handled mostly public works projects along with some private jobs. From 2006 to 2019, Mr. Martinez was paid at the lowest laborer prevailing rate, even though he alleged he regularly performed higher-classified work that carried a higher hourly rate. He also claimed the company failed to pay a proper blended overtime rate during weeks in which he worked both public and private jobs, or worked under more than one job title, and that it did not pay him for time spent loading his truck and traveling to job sites.
In February 2020, Mr. Martinez sued under the Wage and Hour Law, the Prevailing Wage Act, and the Earned Sick Leave Law, for himself and on behalf of between six and ten other hourly laborers he said were subject to the same unlawful pay practices. The trial court certified the case as a representative action, named Mr. Martinez the representative, and set a six-year look-back period reaching from 2014 to 2020 in which they could seek damages. The employer challenged that ruling in the Appellate Division before a trial had taken place.
The Law Behind a Representative Wage Action
New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law and Prevailing Wage Act were written to protect workers’ pay. They were each modeled on the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). However, they part ways with federal law relating to how an employee can bring a claim on behalf of other employees.
The Fair Labor Standards Act requires each worker to opt in by filing written consent before joining a collective wage claim, a requirement Congress added through the Portal-to-Portal Act. However, New Jersey’s statutes never adopted that language. The Wage Payment Law and the Prevailing Wage Act instead let workers maintain an action on behalf of other workers who are similarly situated and designate a representative to do so, under N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25 and N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.40, respectively.
What the Appellate Division Decided
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court in part and reversed it in part. On the central question, it agreed that representative actions under the Wage and Hour Law and the Prevailing Wage Act are independent of Rule 4:32-1 and do not require class certification, following its recent decision in Cano v. County Concrete Corp., 483 N.J. Super. 459 (App. Div. 2026). The court also rejected the employer’s argument that Mr. Martinez had to produce evidence of other underpaid employees before the case could proceed as a representative action. His complaint put the company on notice, and the company already was aware of the names and contact information for roughly fifteen workers.
The court parted with the trial judge on the look-back period. That issue turns on a 2019 amendment that added a six-year window for recovering unpaid wages under the Wage and Hour Law, at N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.1. In Maia v. IEW Construction Group, 257 N.J. 330 (2024), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the six-year window applies only going forward, to conduct on or after the amendment’s August 6, 2019 effective date, and not backward to conduct that occurred before it. Our page on unpaid overtime explains how these deadlines affect what a worker can recover.
For the Wage and Hour Law and Earned Sick Leave Law claims, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s application of a six-year look-back period, and instead held that a two-year statute of limitations governs the conduct at issue, because the conduct predated the 2019 amendment. In contrast, for the Prevailing Wage Act claim, it used a six-year period, reasoning that a prevailing wage claim essentially is a breach-of-contract claim and carries a six-year contract statute of limitations.
Because this was an appeal before trial, the court did not decide whether T. Slack actually underpaid anyone. It instead decided how the case may proceed, and how far back the damages can reach, before it sent the matter back to the trial court.
Why the Decision Matters for New Jersey Workers
For employees, the ruling lowers a genuine barrier. Wage cases often involve modest individual amounts that are hard to pursue one worker at a time, and class certification can be expensive and slow, and requires a relatively large number of employees who were impacted by same violation of law. Allowing a representative action without it means a group of laborers, warehouse staff, or other hourly employees can pursuant a shared claim together without clearing those requirements. The decision draws on New Jersey’s own wage and hour statutes, enforced by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, rather than on the narrower federal collective-action model.
While the Court’s split on the look-back issue is noteworthy, as we get further from August 6, 2019, most wage and hour cases will be subject to the much longer six-year look-back period.
Our attorneys at Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. represent New Jersey employees in these wage and hour disputes. We can help sort out which deadline governs a particular claim.
Contact a New Jersey Wage and Hour Lawyer
If you believe your employer has failed to pay you overtime, prevailing wages, or earned sick leave, Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. can review your situation and explain your options under New Jersey law. Our attorneys have represented New Jersey employees for over 30 years, and we act for workers, never for employers. Contact us at (201) 777-2250 or through our contact page to schedule a consultation.