Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
    • Articles
  • Law Firms
    • Law Firms
  • Organizations
    • Organizations
    • RETALIATION—9th Cir.: University officials who fired director for husband’s whistleblowing speech were entitled to qualified immunity
    • AGENCY NEWS—Ethics experts: AG, FBI director violated rules in comments about judge’s arrest
    • DISCRIMINATION—PAY—D.N.J.: Jury to decide veterinary pathologist’s equal pay claims
    • DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—C.D. Cal.: Fire captain who refused to fly Pride flag survives motion to dismiss
    • DOL NEWS—WHD recovers $1.4M in unpaid overtime for over 2,600 employees of electrical engineering and construction company
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Illinois anti-discrimination law to address AI goes into effect on 1 January 2026
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Union monopolies and Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act: can labor unions be held liable for monopolizing labor markets?
    • LABOR—NLRB WEEKLY SUMMARY—Weekly summary of NLRB decisions
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Fourth Circuit will hold en banc hearing on merits of appeal of injunction against DOGE access to SSA records
    • PENSION AND BENEFIT PLANS—N.D. Ill.: Pension fund cannot use post-2014 contribution rate to figure employer’s withdrawal liability
    • PUBLIC EMPLOYEES—2d Cir.: City employee could not establish retaliation based on recurring lunchtime meetings
    • REPORTS—Economic Policy Institute details 100 Trump actions and impacts on workers
    • WAGE-HOUR—CLASS ACTIONS—Other litigation developments
  • Articles
    • Articles
  • Law Firms
    • Law Firms
  • Organizations
    • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—CLASS ACTIONS—Other litigation developments, (May 8, 2025)

    By WK Editorial Staff

    A roundup of court actions granting conditional certification of FLSA collective and Rule 23 class actions of interest to the labor and employment community.

    Employees of luxury resort, who were placed there by a staffing agency to provide services in ...

    By WK Editorial Staff

    A roundup of court actions granting conditional certification of FLSA collective and Rule 23 class actions of interest to the labor and employment community.

    Employees of luxury resort, who were placed there by a staffing agency to provide services in restaurant, kitchens, housekeeping, and other departments, alleged that the employing entities comprised a “single enterprise” and that they were not paid for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek; FLSA collective (Flores v. Elite Staffing Services LLC, No. CV-24-02241-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz. Apr. 3, 2025)).

    Senior care employee’s class certification of a Rule 23 class alleging that an employer engaged in systemic violations of Wisconsin’s Wage Payment and Collection Laws was affirmed on appeal by a Wisconsin appellate court; Rule 23 Class (Freeman v. SL Greenfield, LLC, No. 2023AP2103 (Wis. App. Apr. 8, 2025)).

    Truck driver for a logistics company alleged that the employer violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by misclassifying drivers as independent contractors, withholding pay, and failing to reimburse work expenses; Rule 23 class (Roman v. Triton Logistics, Inc., No. 23 CV 15146 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2025)).

    Call center representatives granted order approving issuance of a motion to potential opt-in plaintiffs regarding a collective action alleging the employer failed to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA; FLSA collective (Breslin v. The RDI Corp., No. 1:24-cv-279 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2025)).

    Consultants for a corporation offering accounting, controller, and consulting services, who were classified as nonexempt and overtime eligible, alleged that the employer failed to pay them for any work they performed that was not billed to a client; FLSA collective (Curry v. Outsourced Associates & Staffing, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00076-DBB (D. Utah Apr. 22, 2025)).

    Performers on a live, adult chat website alleged that the employer misclassified them as independent contractors, thereby denying them the right to be paid the minimum wage and protection against illegal deductions from pay; Rule 23 class (Tomasello v. ICF Technology, Inc., No. 23-3759 (D.N.J. Apr. 23, 2025)).

    Cases: WageHour ClassActions EmployeeStatus WorkingTime Overtime MinimumWage Exemptions StateLawClaims CoverageLiability

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use