Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with wage and hour issues, (Sep 11, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

D. Colo.: Sparse evidence failed to establish companywide short-break policy. An hourly employee sued her employer, a nationwide healthcare employer, alleging that it “deducts 30 minutes from the employees’ six-hour shifts…for time they work[] during their interrupted meal breaks,” and requires nurses and technicians to clock out “for rest breaks of fewer than 20 minutes,” in violation of the FLSA. She claimed these practices denied overtime during weeks when employees worked more than 40 hours in violation of the FLSA. The employee later withdrew her request to certify a meal-break collective. She moved for conditional certification and court-authorized notice as to the rest break collective, covering current and former hourly paid nurses and technicians providing direct patient care across 41 states. The court denied the motion. The court stated that the employee failed to cite evidence “in support of her claim that [the healthcare provider] had a practice of not paying for rest breaks 20 minutes or shorter in duration.” One worker’s uncompensated 19-minute break and a South Carolina employee’s testimony that “she had to clock out for breaks lasting only five or ten minutes” failed to “set forth ‘substantial allegations’ that the Proposed Collective Members ‘were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan’” (Lightner v. DaVita, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-03104-NYW-KAS (D. Colo. Aug. 21, 2026)).

E.D.N.Y.: Employer failed to pay security system installer overtime. A security system installer worked for his employer from 2016 through 2021 and received $954 weekly regardless of hours worked. The installer sometimes worked more than 40 hours and received no overtime premium. He sued the employer under the FLSA and New York Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid overtime plus wage notice and statement violations. He also alleged unpaid regular wages and minimum wages plus prevailing wages. The employee moved for summary judgment on six claims but excluded the regular wage claim. The court granted summary judgment on overtime liability. The administrative exemption failed because his “primary role” was manual work. The executive exemption failed because he lacked hiring or firing authority. The professional exemption was waived because the employer cited no supporting evidence. The issue of damages required trial because the parties disputed which weeks exceeded 40 hours. The court dismissed the wage notice and statement claims because the employee failed to demonstrate standing. It denied minimum wage and prevailing wage relief because the employee failed to provide facts supporting summary judgment (Stavola v. Macro Digital Technology Corp., 24-0026 (GRB)(JMW) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2026)).

M.D. Fla.: Class definition failed to identify tipped employees subject to challenged policies. Front-of-house (FOH) restaurant employees sued the restaurant’s parent corporation and its owners alleging they were paid subminimum wages through an invalid tip pool in violation of the FLSA and Florida law. They alleged the pool included untipped back-of-house employees. They also alleged inadequate tip-credit notice and unlawful uniform deductions. The employees moved to certify a Rule 23 class covering “all current and former hourly front-of-house employees” paid below minimum wage. The court denied certification without prejudice because the proposed class was “vague, overinclusive, and difficult to apply.” The record used inconsistent definitions of front-of-house positions. It also failed to establish which positions received tips. The court found standing and satisfied Rule 23(a) requirements. The court allowed the employees to renew their motion to certify, noting the motion should “clarify which FOH positions are tipped and limit the proposed class to only those positions” (Zachman v. HTLC Ventures, Inc., No. 6:25-cv-00275-JSS-CAB (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2026)).

S.D.N.Y.: Factual disputes over employment status, interstate work barred summary judgment. A “trader and project manager” entered into a business relationship with an investment management firm and its owner to provide analysis services for another firm that provided “economic analysis and signals to potential customers.” The parties had no written agreement and disputed whether their arrangement created employment or an equal-profit partnership. The trader claimed she followed a six-day schedule “controlled and dictated” by the owner. The owner maintained that the trader could make independent decisions, and that the schedule was not “mandatory or supervisory.” Over the seven-month business relationship, the trader received $2,640, but the parties disputed whether those payments were wages or advances against future profits. The trader alleged that she was terminated after complaining about wages, and she sued the owner, his investment firm, and economic analysis firm under the FLSA and New York Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation. She also alleged retaliation and violations of statutory wage-notice and wage-statement requirements. The trader received default judgments against the two firms, and the case moved forward against the owner, who appeared pro se. The trader moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion. The record did not conclusively establish whether she “was engaged in interstate or international commerce” under the FLSA. The court also found a dispute as to whether the trader and the owner “had an employer-employee relationship.” The same factual disputes precluded judgment on her NYLL claims (Gromina v. Kazmarck, No. 22-CV-744 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2026)).

W.D. Wash.: Class certification denied because evidence failed to show common break practice. A nonexempt business account manager who worked at several of Verizon’s Washington offices from 2018 through May 2025 sued the company individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees. He alleged that the employer failed to pay “for all hours worked, failed to provide compliant meal and rest periods, failed to provide wages and damages for the noncompliant meal and rest periods, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements” in violation of Washington State law. The employee moved to certify a class of current and former nonexempt Washington employees. The court denied certification despite finding numerosity satisfied. Regarding commonality and typicality, the employee’s declaration addressed only his own experience. His deposition identified limited break complaints from retail employees outside his business group. His data scientist who reviewed and analyzed punch cards assumed employees took no rest breaks because their time records contained no corresponding punches. The data scientist also provided no supporting methodology. The evidence failed to establish that the company “denied meal and rest periods to the putative class members by requiring the putative class members to work through their meal and rest periods” (Llewellyn v. Cellco Partnership, No. 2:25-cv-01316-RSL (W.D. Wash. Aug. 17, 2026)).

Cases: WageHour ClassActions Exemptions RemediesDamages CoverageLiability EmployeeStatus MinimumWage Overtime WorkingTime ContractClaims StateLawClaims