Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with wage and hour issues, (Apr 3, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent decisions involving wage and hour issues of interest to the labor and employment community.

5th Cir.: Mandamus failed because overtime claims could be reviewed after judgment. A liftboat cook filed suit alleging that his employer improperly classified him and other crewmembers as exempt from overtime pay, in violation of the FLSA. He subsequently filed a motion to certify a class of all crewmembers working on specified liftboats over a defined period “who performed a substantial amount of non-seaman work yet were misclassified as exempt from overtime.” After the court certified the class, the employer moved for leave to appeal the decision, which was denied. The employer then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the certification order. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition, holding that mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy” and that “all issues [could] be addressed in a direct appeal from final judgment” (In re Alliance Lifeboats, L.L.C., No. 26-30091 (5th Cir. Mar. 11, 2026)).

5th Cir.: Attorneys’ fee award upheld after early correction and limited FLSA success. A group of hospital employees brought an FLSA collective action alleging unpaid overtime against two hospital-related entities. The employees obtained summary judgment only against the entity that corrected the wages and resolved all remaining issues by settlement except attorneys’ fees and costs. Following approval of the settlement, the employees moved for more than $3 million in attorneys’ fees and “nearly $101,000 in costs.” The district court applied the “requisite legal standards,” and reduced the fees to $919,000, and the costs to approximately $16,519. On cross-appeals challenging the ruling, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, noting that the court “adequately applied the relevant legal standards for awarding attorneys’ fees and costs in FLSA cases.” Judge Oldham concurred, emphasizing “just how messy and indeterminate our fee-shifting doctrine is,” and noting that the Fifth Circuit’s “twelve-factor test” to assess the reasonableness of fee awards “is neither predictable ex ante nor clear ex post” (Kunze v. Baylor Scott & White Health, No. 24-11040 (5th Cir. Mar. 5, 2026, unpublished)).

D.D.C.: FLSA enterprise coverage failed; no evidence revenues reached statutory minimum. A shampoo assistant at a hair salon resigned in 2023 and sued the salon for unpaid wages and overtime under the FLSA, the D.C. Minimum Wage Act Revision Act of 1992 (DCMWA), and the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law (DCWPCL). She alleged that the salon was subject to FLSA enterprise coverage based on annual gross sales exceeding $500,000. The salon and its co-owner moved for partial summary judgment, and the worker cross-moved on FLSA applicability. The court granted partial summary judgment for the employer on enterprise coverage, holding that the employee failed to show that the salon “conducted tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of unreported cash sales sufficient to trigger FLSA enterprise coverage.” As to the individual coverage claims, the court found “strongly contested” evidence as to whether interstate supply trips were frequent and performed as part of job duties and denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on those claims (Astudillo v. Salon Macomb, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-02294-SLS (D.D.C. Mar. 5, 2026)).

E.D. Cal.: Class barred where supervisor implemented challenged pay practices. Hourly, non-exempt retail employees sued their employer alleging it maintained class-wide policies that resulted in unpaid overtime, off-the-clock work, missed meal and rest breaks, unreimbursed business expenses, and inaccurate wage statements, among other things. After an earlier denial of certification “because some class members had signed arbitration agreements,” the employees filed a renewed motion seeking certification of a statewide class and multiple subclasses limited to employees without arbitration agreements. The district court denied the renewed motion without prejudice. The court held that class certification failed at Rule 23(a)’s adequacy requirement because one proposed class representative had served in a supervisory role and “was involved in implementing the challenged policy regarding rest breaks.” The court further found that the proposed class definitions “[did] not distinguish between supervisory and non-supervisory employees,” and that the evidentiary record did not show who implemented the alleged policies across the subclasses. The court concluded the proposed representatives and counsel could not “adequately represent class members with such diverging interests” (Brum v. MarketSource, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00241-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2026)).

E.D.N.C.: Prison vigilance made off-shift time compensable under FLSA. Correctional officers and sergeants employed at state prison facilities filed a certified class and collective action alleging that the agency failed to pay them for all compensable hours worked when they were inside the prisons, despite requiring constant vigilance and readiness to respond to emergencies. They alleged violations of the FLSA’s overtime provisions and breach of contract. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that any unpaid time was preliminary or de minimis, that contract claims were preempted by the FLSA, and that alleged overpayments should offset damages. The court denied the motion and granted partial summary judgment on liability for the officers, holding that vigilance and preparedness to act were integral “in order to maintain the facilities’ security,” that the uncompensated time was not de minimis, that the contractual claims were not preempted because they sought compensation more generous than the FLSA, and that offsets for alleged overpayments were inappropriate (Hodge v. North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, No. 5:19-CV-478-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 2026)).

M.D. Fla.: FLSA certification denied for failure to show similarly situated sales employees. A sales employee at a timeshare exit company claimed that between 2023 to 2024, he routinely exceeded forty hours per week while being paid solely by commission, sometimes earning no pay and allegedly falling below the minimum wage. In 2025, he sued the employer and its CEO, alleging they “failed to pay the minimum wage and overtime compensation to him and others similarly situated,” in violation of the FLSA and the Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA). The employee moved for conditional certification of a collective action. The court denied the motion, holding that the sales employee “fail[ed to provide a ‘reasonable basis’ to conclude that similarly situated employees will opt-in or that the [company and CEO] used a uniform payment policy,” and that “a single declaration by a plaintiff is insufficient to support certification” (Bush v. EZ Advocates, LLC, No. 8:25-cv-1375-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2026)).

N.D. Cal.: Class denied because managers’ actual duties varied too widely. Exempt-classified managers employed at California car rental locations sued their employer alleging they were misclassified and denied “wages, overtime, meal and rest periods, and accurate wage statements,” because they spent most of their time performing non-managerial, hourly tasks. Relying on a corporate policy classifying all such managers as exempt, the employees moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class asserting misclassification under California law. The court denied the motion, holding that although numerosity, adequacy, commonality, and typicality were satisfied, common issues did not predominate. The court held that the employees failed to identify “common proof of work actually performed,” and that “their evidence consist[ed] of class members’ estimates of their own work.” Additionally, there was no “common proof ‘as to whether class members [were] performing similar duties’” (Maharaj v. The Hertz Corp., No. 3:23-cv-04726-JSC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026)).

W.D. Wash.: Court allows further discovery regarding sales associate’s class-certification application. A retail employee applied online for a part-time sales associate position through a retailer’s website and was hired from an “evergreen” posting that omitted wage and benefits information. Two months later, the employee was approved for promotion to store manager before submitting an online application solely to complete internal administrative requirements, using a posting that “failed to disclose wage and benefits information” in violation of Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA). She filed a putative wage transparency class action on behalf of statewide applicants for part-time sales associate and store manager positions from 2023 through the present. The employer moved preemptively to deny certification, arguing that the employe could not meet “Rule 23(a) and (b)(3)’s commonality, typicality, adequate representation, predominance, and superiority requirements.” The court granted the motion as to the store manager claim, holding the representative’s application was atypical because she applied only after securing the promotion and thus suffered a unique alleged injury. The court denied the motion without prejudice as to the sales associate claim, finding that it “requires further discovery” (Moquete v. GNC Holdings, LLC, No. 3:24-cv-05393-BHS (W.D. Wash. Mar. 5, 2026)).

Cases: WageHour Overtime Exemptions ClassActions MinimumWage WorkingTime StateLawClaims EvidenceDiscovery AttorneysFees