Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with wage and hour issues, (Jul 31, 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.: Overtime claim failed because employee could ‘engage in personal activities’ during standby hours. A city fire department captain sued the city alleging it violated the FLSA by transferring him after he filed overtime grievances and by failing to pay overtime for all hours of a standby shift following a “pathogen-exposure incident.” The city moved for partial summary judgment on the retaliation and overtime claims. The district court granted the motion in part. The court held that the unpaid standby hours were not compensable because the employee remained “free to engage in personal activities” between calls. The court denied summary judgment on part of the retaliation claim because a factual dispute remained regarding monetary damages. The court barred emotional distress damages because the employee offered insufficient supporting evidence (Johnson v. City of Phoenix, No. CV-24-00076-PHX-KML (D. Ariz. July 21, 2026)).

D.N.J.: Expanded class definition, insufficient numerosity defeated certification motion. Truck drivers filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals alleging that a logistics company misclassified Illinois delivery drivers as independent contractors and violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The drivers sought to represent themselves and other drivers classified as independent contractors that made deliveries for the company “for Target, Starbucks, or Steinmart stores anywhere in Illinois during the applicable limitations period.” The drivers later moved to amend the complaint, removing the limiting clause “defining the class as those who performed deliveries on behalf of defendants for Target, Starbucks, or Steinmart.” The magistrate denied the motion, holding, among other things, that the amendment “would have resulted in additional discovery, costs, and preparation necessary to defend new facts and legal theories.” The drivers moved for class certification and removed the limitation of drivers who delivered for Target, Starbucks, or Steinmart. The district court denied the motion without prejudice. The court held that the proposed class improperly expanded the class definition beyond the operative complaint. The court found that an earlier order had rejected a similar expansion because it would prejudice the employer. The court also held that the drivers failed to prove numerosity (Kolev v. National Freight, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-15107-ESK-EAP (D.N.J. June 26, 2026)).

E.D. Cal.: Class certification failed because wage claims required individualized proof. An agricultural worker brought a putative class action alleging violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and California wage laws. She claimed that a farm labor contractor failed to provide meal periods. She also alleged failures to separately compensate nonproductive time and rest breaks for piece-rate workers. She sought certification of a global class and six subclasses. The employer opposed certification. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion. The court held that while the worker established numerosity, she failed to establish commonality because the worker “worked on only a grape-related piece-rate assignment,” and “did not work across Grow Smart’s different contractees, locations, job duties, supervisors, pay methods, or timekeeping systems.” The court noted that employees worked under different supervisors and used different timekeeping systems. The court further held that common issues did not predominate and that liability would require individualized inquiries into assignments, pay methods, and time records (Reyes v. Grow Smart Labor, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00028-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2026)).

S.D.N.Y.: Settlement preliminarily approved in NYPD Paid Detail Program wage and hour case. Police officers alleged that the city and private vendors violated the FLSA and New York wage laws by failing to timely pay wages earned through the NYPD Paid Detail Program. After the officers settled with eight of the vendors, they moved for preliminary approval of settlement agreements with three other vendors, as well as certification of settlement classes and collectives. The district court granted the motion. The court preliminarily approved the settlements and certified the settlement classes. The total proposed gross settlement fund with all three vendors would total $712,877.59. Under the agreements, the settlement classes would receive approximately “65% of their potential wage damages.” The court also finally certified the FLSA collectives. The court held that Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) prerequisites were satisfied and found the settlements fair and reasonable. The court granted conditional certification of the three settlement classes (Piney v. City of New York, No. 1:25-cv-00671-JMF-SLC (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2026)).

S.D.N.Y.: Court approves $4.3 million settlement in sanitation workers’ FLSA overtime case. More than 2,500 sanitation workers brought FLSA claims against the City of New York alleging unpaid pre shift overtime, improper overtime rate calculations, exclusion of differential pay from overtime calculations, and untimely overtime payments. The City denied liability and asserted affirmative defenses. After mediation, the parties filed a joint motion seeking approval of a settlement. The court granted the motion and approved the $4,324,337.00 settlement. Under the agreement, $2,851,995.76 will go to the sanitation workers, their counsel will receive $1,428,997.88 in attorneys’ fees, $37,343.36 is paid in expenses, and the two workers who served as settlement team members will receive service awards of $3,000 each. The court held the settlement terms are fair and reasonable because the settlement provides meaningful compensation “given the range of potential recovery and attendant litigation risks.” The court also found that the agreement resulted from arm’s length negotiations during mediation. The court dismissed the action with prejudice (Vitale v. City of New York, No. 1:25-cv-01129-MKV (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2026)).

Cases: WageHour Overtime ClassActions WorkingTime TortClaims StateLawClaims RemediesDamages