Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with wage and hour issues, (Sep 26, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

E.D. Mich: Employer’s time rounding, lunch deduction policies were legal under FLSA. An employee sued his employer alleging that the employer’s time rounding policy resulted in uncompensated work, as employees were required to clock in before their shift meetings and perform tasks without pay. The employee also alleged that the employer’s automatic lunch deduction policy led to unpaid overtime, because employees often worked through their lunch breaks. The employer filed for summary judgment, asserting that the time rounding policy was neutral and lawful under FLSA regulations, and that the employee failed to utilize the established exception log process to report unpaid lunch periods. The court found that the time rounding policy was indeed neutral. Furthermore, the court determined that the employer “had established a reasonable process for employees to report uncompensated work time: the ‘exception logs’ in which employees would request adjustments to their time for a day,” which the employee used successfully for other time corrections but failed to use for lunch periods. The motion was granted (Wilcox v. Hearn Industrial Services, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-10229-TGB-CI (E.D. Mich. Sept. 8, 2025)).

N.D. Ala.: City calculated overtime consistent with FLSA’s requirements. A group of firefighters sued their municipal employer alleging “claims for unpaid overtime under the FLSA based on use of an incorrect hourly rate to calculate overtime pay,” and retaliation following their complaints about pay discrepancies. From 1985 until 2022, the firefighters worked under a nineteen-day work period, resulting in overtime when exceeding 144 hours, with compensation calculated based on a biweekly salary divided by an average of 106 hours. However, their paychecks erroneously listed an hourly rate based on an incorrect 80-hour figure, causing confusion. The city later switched to a twenty-eight-day work period to align pay periods with the firefighters’ work period, resulting in a change in the pay rate on their checks. The firefighters claimed the change was retaliatory, because they complained to the civil service board. The city moved for summary judgment. The court found that the city’s overtime calculations complied with FLSA requirements, as the incorrect pay rate on checks was not used for calculations. Furthermore, the court determined there was no adverse employment action constituting retaliation. The motion was granted (Naramore v. City of Jasper, Alabama, No. 6:23-cv-531-AMM (N.D. Ala. Sept. 8, 2025)).

N.D. Cal.: Preliminary approval of $12 million settlement granted in class action against airline. An employee sued Delta Air Lines alleging it failed to compensate certain California employees for all hours worked and neglected to provide mandated meal and rest breaks. After the parties settled the case, the employee moved for preliminary approval of the class action and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) settlement. The court granted the motion, finding the settlement terms to be “fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Class.” The settlement includes a $12 million common fund, covering individual settlement shares, a $450,000 payment to the State of California for PAGA claims, $150,000 for the PAGA members, a $10,000 service payment to the class representative, attorneys’ fees not exceeding 33 1/3% of the settlement amount, litigation expenses up to $70,000, and settlement administration costs estimated at $29,000. The court certified the class for settlement purposes, noting the settlement resulted from arms-length negotiations and mediation (Toledo v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 22-cv-00081-AMO (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2025)).

S.D.N.Y.: Preliminary approval of $247K settlement granted in NYPD paid detail program wage dispute. Police officers who performed off-duty security work for vendors through the NYPD’s Paid Detail Program (PDP) sued the City of New York, NYPD, and 88 vendors alleging they failed to adequately compensate the officers and failed to provide wage notices and statements, in violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Following negotiations, the officers settled with five vendors involved in the program. The officers moved for preliminary approval of these settlements, seeking class certification, appointment of class counsel, approval of settlement notices, and a fairness hearing. The court found that the proposed settlements met the requirements for preliminary approval under Rule 23, noting that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and adequate. The settlements provide for gross settlement funds totaling over $247,000, with class members for four of the vendors recovering 65% of their potential wage damages, and class members for the remaining vendor recovering 70.4% of their potential wage damages. The court certified the five settlement classes, and appointed Analytics LLC as the settlement administrator (Piney v. City of New York, No. 1:25-cv-00671-DEH-SLC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2025)).

S.D.N.Y.: Class certification denied due to lack of commonality, predominance issues. Employees who worked for a clothing retailer sued the company, alleging that it “violated the New York Labor Law by paying them biweekly instead of weekly,” and sought class certification for all current and former employees at the retailer’s New York locations. The employees argued that they were “manual workers” under New York law, which requires weekly payment, because they spent over 25 percent of their time performing physical labor. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate commonality and predominance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court noted that the evidence presented did not establish a company-wide policy requiring all retail employees to spend the requisite percentage of their time on physical labor. Instead, the evidence showed significant variation in tasks and time allocation across different roles and locations, with managerial discretion playing a substantial role in task assignments. The motion was denied (Bryant v. Buffalo Exchange, Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-08286-AS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2025)).

Cases: WageHour Overtime ClassActions WorkingTime RemediesDamages CoverageLiability Procedure StateLawClaims