Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with wage and hour issues, (Jan 9, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

D. Ariz.: Incomplete evidence precludes summary on alleged wage, tip credit violations. An employee hired by a now-defunct restaurant as a payroll coordinator in August 2020, and another employee hired as a server in January 2022, sued the restaurant, the holding company for the liquor license, and the owner, alleging widespread wage violations—including bounced checks, late payments, and improper tip credit practices—under the FLSA, Arizona Minimum Wage Act (AMWA), and Arizona Wage Act (AWA). Following the termination of a third-party payroll service, disputes arose over unpaid and late wages for tipped and non-tipped employees. The employees moved for partial summary judgment on several wage claims under the FLSA, AMWA, and AWA against the restaurant and its owner, and sought judgment on all counterclaims. The owner and the holding company moved for summary judgment on all wage claims. The court held that the restaurant was an employer under the FLSA and AMWA, but the holding company was not, granting it judgment on all wage-related claims. As to the owner, the court found genuine issues of material fact, precluding summary judgment on his employer status. Plaintiffs failed to establish entitlement to judgment on minimum wage and tip-credit notice claims because their evidence did not cover all collective members. The court also granted summary judgment for the employees on most counterclaims—including breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment, and indemnity—due to lack of evidence or legal viability, but allowed fraud and fraudulent concealment claims against the payroll coordinator to proceed (Alexander v. Golden Margarita LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00781-DWL (D. Ariz. Dec. 16, 2025)).

D. Mass.: Lack of evidence of common policy dooms conditional certification. A remote customer solutions agent employed by an insurance company filed a putative class-action lawsuit alleging that she and other agents were required to perform unpaid pre- and post-shift tasks—such as booting up computers, logging into systems, and troubleshooting technical issues—so they could immediately handle customer calls at shift start. She claimed these off-the-clock activities, combined with overtime work, violated the FLSA and the Arizona Wage Statute, and sought to conditionally certify a collective action for all agents with similar roles dating back to September 2021. The customer service agent moved for conditional certification of a collective action. The court, applying the standard set forth in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987), denied the motion, finding the employee failed to make the “modest factual showing” required to demonstrate that other agents were “subject to a common policy or plan.” The court emphasized that declarations and evidence offered did not establish that the company “has a company-wide common policy of supervisors instructing or pressuring [customer solutions agents] to perform work off-the-clock without reporting it,” nor did the agent show any interest from other employees in joining the suit (Sigler v. Homesite Group Inc., No. 1:24-cv-12477-DJC (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2025)).

D.S.C.: Court rejects retaliation, wage claims for lack of evidence. A former teacher’s aide sued a school district alleging she was terminated in retaliation for reporting that a classroom teacher “physically abused her handicapped students.” She also alleged the school district withheld wages “from May 15, 2024, through June 11, 2024.” Her complaint asserted violations of the South Carolina Whistleblower Protection Act, the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, the FLSA, and the ADA. The school district moved for summary judgment. The court held that undisputed evidence showed the aide was hired for a 190-day term, paid for all hours worked, and stopped working after May 16, 2024, with her contract ending June 11, 2024. The record further established she was not rehired because she failed to sign a Letter of Intent for the next school year. Plaintiff offered no evidence beyond her pleadings to support wage or whistleblower claims, and did not oppose the ADA arguments. The court granted summary judgment (Gillispie v. Charleston County School District, No. 2:24-cv-04550-RMG (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2025)).

N.D. Cal.: Court rejects class certification over union—non-union divide in wage claims. A former non-union hourly employee sued his prior employer, a California manufacturing company, alleging nine wage-and-hour violations under state law, including unlawful rounding of work hours, automatic meal-period deductions, failure to provide compliant meal breaks, miscalculation of overtime and sick pay rates, unreimbursed tool expenses, inaccurate wage statements, and related unfair competition claims. He moved to certify nine subclasses of current and former non-exempt employees under Rule 23(b)(3). The employer opposed, arguing that no uniform unlawful policy existed, individualized issues predominated, and that ninety percent of the proposed class were union members governed by the CBA’s mandatory grievance and arbitration provisions. The court denied certification, holding that the non-union employee’s claims were not typical of the class under Rule 23(a)(3) (Wilson v. Delta Star, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025)).

Cases: WageHour Overtime Exemptions ClassActions MinimumWage Retaliation Whistleblowers WorkingTime StateLawClaims