Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with wage and hour issues, (Aug 14, 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.: Economic realities test showed dispatch supervisor was an employee. A dispatch supervisor for a chauffeur service sued the company and its owner alleging that they violated the FLSA and Arizona wage laws by failing to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, and timely wages. The employee alleged that she regularly worked 84 to 100 hours weekly for a fixed salary. After the employer answered the complaint, counterclaiming for “conspiracy to commit trademark infringement and unfair competition, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment,” the employee amended her complaint, adding an FLSA retaliation claim. The employer subsequently moved to withdraw the counterclaims, and the employee moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the request to withdraw the counterclaims and granted summary judgment in part. The court held that the economic realities test established the employee was an employee under the FLSA, rather than an independent contractor, because the employer controlled her work. The court held that the owner of the company qualified as an “employer” under the FLSA because he hired employees, set operating hours for them, and “determined the rate and method of [the dispatch supervisor’s] pay. The court denied summary judgment on the overtime claim because of fact issues. The court also denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim because the employee failed to show the withdrawn counterclaims “amount[ed] to an adverse employment action” (Tanner v. Top Notch Transportation LLC, No. 2:25-cv-01274-DGC (D. Ariz. July 31, 2026)).

D. Neb.: Settlement in trucking wage and hour case approved. Truck drivers employed by a trucking company brought a class action alleging various violations of California and Nebraska wage and hour laws relating to the employer’s compensation practices, and also asserted claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. The drivers filed an unopposed motion for final settlement approval and sought attorneys’ fees, litigation costs and service awards. The court held that the class notice satisfied Rule 23 and due process. The court found the settlement “fair, reasonable and adequate” under Rule 23(e)(2), as it resulted from “good-faith, arm’s-length negotiation conducted with the assistance of an experienced mediator,” and was “not the product of fraud or collusion.” The court overruled objections to the settlement and approved the $100,000 PAGA allocation. It awarded $6 million in fees—which was “one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount”—and $1,702,917.85 in litigation costs. The court awarded service awards of $15,000 each to the seven class representatives, and $282,300 in fees and expenses to the settlement administrator. The court dismissed the consolidated actions with prejudice while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement (Abarca v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Nos. 8:14-cv-00319, 8:15-cv-00287, and 8:17-cv-00145 (D. Neb. July 24, 2026)).

S.D.N.Y.: Court approves settlement in wage and hour suit against NYPD’s Building Maintenance Section. Ninety-seven trade workers who worked in the NYPD’s Building Maintenance Section filed suit alleging unpaid overtime and unpaid pre- and post-shift work under the FLSA. They also alleged unpaid meal-break work and unpaid wages required by a collective bargaining agreement. The employees and city settled the case, with the help of a mediator, and moved for approval of their settlement. Under the agreement, $1,812,628.59 would go to the employees, with “$1,250,000 coming from back wages and $562,628.59 coming from liquidated damages.” The agreement provided for $992,646.39 in attorney fees, with $514,409.39 coming from liquidated damages; $72,962.02 in costs; and $100,000 in service awards. The court found the recovery fair because damages were uncertain, and because of the “seriousness of the litigation risk.” Additionally, mediation lasted about one year and showed arm’s-length bargaining without fraud or collusion. The court found that plaintiffs’ counsel’s 35 percent fee was “in line with awards approved in th[e] district.” In applying the lodestar method, the court found that the submitted hourly entries were “in line with what is expected for litigation of this magnitude.” The service awards were justified by the representatives’ substantial work and “professional risk[s] they incurred….” The court approved the settlement and dismissed the FLSA claims with prejudice (Reilly v. The City of New York, No. 1:23-cv-00521-AS-VF (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2026)).

Cases: WageHour ClassActions CoverageLiability MinimumWage Overtime WorkingTime ContractClaims AttorneysFees StateLawClaims