Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with wage and hour issues, (May 1, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

D. Conn.: FLSA claim failed for lack of enterprise or individual FLSA coverage. A pizza delivery driver alleged he worked up to 100 hours per week for a flat $500 cash salary and was denied overtime “for hours worked over 40 hours per week.” In addition, he alleged that he “used his own car, insurance, and gas to deliver pizzas for the restaurant,” and that when he got into an accident during working hours, he “had to pay for the repairs himself.” He sued the restaurant and owner, alleging violations of the FLSA and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA). The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the driver “never properly established enterprise coverage or individual coverage.” The court granted the motion, holding that the driver failed to establish FLSA coverage because he offered no affirmative evidence that the restaurant met the $500,000 enterprise threshold and relied on “bare and speculative assertions” to challenge the employer’s documented revenues. Further, he failed to show individual coverage because he produced no evidence of regular interstate activity or deliveries crossing state lines. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the CFEPA claims, dismissing them without prejudice (Davila v. Roblen, LLC fdba Vicolo Pizza Restaurant, No. 3:23-cv-00512 (SRU) (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2026)).

D. Mass.: Distributor-owners potentially served bakery as employees through delivery work. Two bread delivery drivers formed and owned a corporate entity that purchased franchise distribution rights to deliver a bakery’s products to existing retail accounts, personally delivering bread and merchandise roughly 75 hours per week while operating under detailed distribution agreements and fee deductions. In 2021, the drivers sued the bakery and its corporate parent, alleging that the companies “deliberately misclassified” them as independent contractors, in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law. The bakery and parent company moved for summary judgment, arguing the drivers were “owners and employees of [their distribution company], a separate corporate entity that purchased franchise rights to sell and distribute [the bakery’s] products in four geographic territories,” and that even if the drivers were their employees, “they did not withhold their wages or underpay them.” The court denied the motion, holding that a reasonable jury could find the drivers “performed services” for the bakery under Massachusetts law despite their corporate structure, because they personally delivered the bakery’s products to stores the bakery treated as its customers and were effectively paid for that labor. The court further found genuine disputes as to whether deducted payments constituted unlawful wage withholdings, whether minimum wage obligations were met, and whether the drivers “f[ell] outside the protections of the overtime statute as drivers ‘on a truck’” (Canales v. Lepage Bakeries Park Street, LLC, No. 21-cv-40065-ADB (D. Mass. Mar. 30, 2026)).

D. Md.: Default judgment granted after repeated discovery abandonment, court order violations. Former security guards sued their employer and two individuals alleging they were misclassified as independent contractors, “worked more than 40 hours per week on multiple occasions and only received straight pay instead of overtime pay for their excess hours.” After answering the complaint, the employer repeatedly failed to produce discovery for months, ignored court-ordered deadlines despite multiple extensions, ceased communicating after counsel withdrew, failed to update contact information, and did not appear at a sanctions hearing. The employees moved for default judgment under Rule 37. The district court granted the motion in part, finding the employer acted in bad faith in failing to comply with discovery; the discovery noncompliance materially prejudiced the employees’ ability to prove overtime claims; there was a strong need to deter the employer’s behavior; and that lesser sanctions would not be as effective. The court held the allegations established employee status and unpaid overtime violations under the FLSA, Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, but limited damages to double the amount of their lost wages, because no evidence of consequential damages supported treble recovery. The employees were granted leave to seek attorneys’ fees and costs (Gatson v. Brooks Security Consultant Group, LLC, No. 24-cv-02248-ABA (D. Md. Apr. 13, 2026)).

D.N.M.: Employer’s sparse records, timing of employee’s termination precluded summary judgment. A hotel maintenance worker who lived on-site, handled repairs, and alleged he remained on call around the clock “to handle discrete assignments, such as unloading trucks, opening guest rooms, and carrying luggage,” alleged that the hotel “routinely failed to pay his overtime at the appropriate rate,” and that he worked an average of 80 hours per week. When his manager ignored his concerns regarding the pay discrepancy, his counsel sent a demand letter. The hotel fired him two days later. The employee sued the hotel, alleging failure to pay overtime and unlawful retaliation under the FLSA. The hotel moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion, finding factual disputes over enterprise coverage, individual coverage, and the employee’s status. It also held that the employee’s irregular schedule did not defeat his overtime claim because the hotel failed to dispute his handwritten work logs, and it failed to show that the employee was properly compensated. The retaliation claim also survived because of the close temporal proximity between his request for overtime pay and his termination (Johnson v. Parks-Floyd Investments, LLC dba Village Lodge, No. 2:23-cv-01063-SMD-KRS (D.N.M. Mar. 26, 2026)).

M.D. Ga.: Business owner knew overtime pay was owed but refused payment. A plumbing employee was paid hourly, wore a company uniform, used company tools, clocked in and out, and worked more than 40 hours per week for a plumbing business. The sole owner set pay, schedules, assignments, and could discipline employees. The employee “only received straight time for the hours he worked in excess of forty, with no overtime premium pay.” The owner was aware that employees worked more than 40 hours per week but told employees he would pay bonuses instead “to compensate for the overtime.” The employee sued for overtime compensation under the FLSA and moved for partial summary judgment on FLSA liability and willfulness. The owner claimed the employee signed an independent contractor agreement, but failed to produce the agreement during discovery. The court granted the motion. It held that the employee “routinely worked more than forty hours in a workweek but was only paid straight time, not the time-and-a-half overtime premium required by the FLSA.” The court also found that the employer willfully violated the FLSA (Gresham v. Father & Son Plumbing LLC, No. 3:25-CV-63 (CDL) (M.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2026)).

N.D. Ill.: Gender-stereotyping evidence supported unequal pay, gender discrimination claims. A procurement director for a beverage producer received positive reviews and bonuses, but was subsequently criticized for lacking “executive presence,” using an abrasive tone, and using “‘self-serving’ language when asking for a bonus.” She sent executives research regarding “why confident, professional women can sometimes be negatively perceived as abrasive when being assertive at work.” The employer later eliminated her position and hired a male VP at a much higher salary to perform her core procurement duties. The employee filed suit alleging equal pay violations under the EPA and Illinois Equal Pay Act (IEPA); gender discrimination under Title VII and the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA); and retaliation under the IHRA, Title VII, IEPA, and FLSA. The employer moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion, holding that a jury could find the new VP performed substantially equal work for higher pay, and that the employer had not established a bona fide factor other than sex for the pay disparity. The court also held that the criticism of the employee’s tone and “aggressive” and “abrasive” personality could reflect sex-based stereotyping, particularly because a male employee with interpersonal problems received coaching and more favorable treatment. The court further held that her unconscious-bias email could be protected activity, and that the employee’s termination and refusal to consider her for other roles supported a causal inference of retaliation (Pydlek v. Mark Anthony Brewing, Inc., No. 24 C 4357 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2026)).

N.D.N.Y.: County knew officers worked unpaid overtime. Current and former sheriff’s department employees—including deputy sheriffs, sergeants, investigators, school resource officers, and K-9 officers—alleged that the county failed to pay them for pre-shift and other overtime work; used a quarter-hour rounding policy that erased compensable time; miscalculated their regular rates by excluding premium payments; and delayed overtime payments. The employees brought a putative collective action alleging violations of the FLSA and moved for summary judgment on FLSA liability. The court granted the motion in part, holding that deputy sheriffs, sergeants, school resource officers, and K-9 officers established compensable unpaid overtime and that the county had actual or constructive knowledge. The court also held that the county miscalculated the regular rate and unreasonably delayed some overtime. However, the court denied summary judgment on time spent changing into uniforms before compensable work, on investigators’ unpaid overtime claims, and on a newly asserted straight-time theory not pleaded in the complaint (Mahan v. County of Saratoga, No. 1:24-CV-880 (MAD/PJE) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2026)).

S.D.N.Y.: Conclusory declarations defeated conditional certification of collective. A group of customer service representatives, technical support representatives, and employees with similar duties, filed suit alleging their employer required them to perform uncompensated pre- and post-shift work logging into and out of computer and phone systems, resulting in unpaid overtime under the FLSA. The employees, who worked at call centers and remotely from their homes, sought to represent a nationwide group of similarly situated employees. After filing suit and submitting near-identical declarations from multiple opt-in employees asserting similar experiences, the employees moved for conditional certification of a collective action. The court denied the motion without prejudice, holding that the employees failed to make the required modest factual showing of a common unlawful policy because their declarations were conclusory, and lacked detail about alleged conversations or observations supporting similarity, rendering them insufficient to support certification (Baldwin v. Computer Generated Solutions, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00128-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2026)).

Cases: WageHour Overtime EmployeeStatus CoverageLiability StateLawClaims MinimumWage EvidenceDiscovery Procedure RemediesDamages Discharge Discrimination PayDiscrimination SexDiscrimination ClassActions Retaliation WorkingTime