Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with wage and hour issues, (Jul 25, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

D. Colo.: Former employee provided insufficient evidence of unpaid work. A husband and wife who worked at a feedlot for a composting company sued the company and its owner alleging that they violated the FLSA and Colorado wage laws by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, and not allowing compensated rest breaks. The central issue was whether the wife “should or should not have been paid under the FLSA for the time that she spent on…[u]npaid [t]asks”—helping her husband with his tasks, purchasing parts for the company, and delivering weight tickets. The court previously determined after a bench trial that the agricultural exemption to the FLSA applied to the husband’s claims, and a subsequent bench trial focused on the wife’s claims. The court found that while the wife occasionally assisted with tasks such as purchasing parts and delivering tickets, her testimony about the duration and frequency of these tasks was inconsistent and not credible. Consequently, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to draw a just and reasonable inference about unpaid wages. The court found for the company and its owner (Porter v. T.J. Crowder and Sons, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-00808-STV (D. Colo. July 15, 2025)).

M.D. Ga.: Motion to certify collective denied due to lack of commonality, manageability concerns. Insurance company employees alleging unpaid overtime sued the employer under the FLSA and sought to certify a collective action for hourly-paid employees at call centers, claiming they were uncompensated for “pre-shift, post-shift, and downtime activities.” The employer opposed, arguing that the employees “failed to demonstrate a common unlawful policy or practice and that the proposed collective is not manageable.” The court applied the Eleventh Circuit’s two-step approach to collective action certification, requiring a reasonable basis to believe that employees were similarly situated. The court found significant variations in job duties, geographic locations, and supervisory practices among the employees, “undermin[ing] the efficiency and fairness of proceeding as a collective action and rais[ing] serious manageability concerns.” Additionally, the court noted that the proposed collective included time-barred claims. The court denied the motion for conditional certification without prejudice (Rice v. Government Employees Insurance Company, No. 5:23-cv-00414-MTT (M.D. Ga. June 30, 2025)).

S.D.N.Y.: Fact issues preclude summary judgment in wage and hour suit. A “food runner” at two restaurants operating under the same name sued the restaurants under the FLSA and New York Labor Law (NYLL), alleging unpaid minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation, as well as withholding of tips and failure to provide required wage notices and statements. The entities operating the restaurants sought summary judgment on all claims. The court noted that the employers failed to comply with Local Civil Rules 56.1 and 7.1 by not submitting a statement of undisputed facts or a memorandum of law. Substantively, the court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding the employee’s compensation, hours worked, and receipt of tips and wage notices. The factual disputes precluded summary judgment, and the motion for summary judgment was denied (Sehgal v. Karena Foods Inc., No. 1:23-cv-08799-DEH (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2025)).

W.D. Tenn.: Court grants equitable tolling due to judicial delays in FLSA collective action. Security specialists working for FedEx brought a collective action against the employer under the FLSA to recover unpaid overtime wages. The employees moved for court-authorized notice distribution in August 2023—which was granted in September 2024—and subsequently moved to “equitably toll the statute of limitations for opt-in plaintiffs who joined the class during the period of judicial notice.” FedEx opposed the motion. The court found that the significant delay in issuing notice, caused by the need to identify similarly situated plaintiffs, justified equitable tolling. The court determined that both the delay and traditional tolling factors, such as the potential plaintiffs’ “actual or constructive notice of the pending litigation,” their diligence in pursuing their rights, and potential prejudice to FedEx, favored the potential plaintiffs. The court concluded that tolling from the date the motion for notice was fully briefed until the end of the opt-in period was appropriate, and granted the motion (Rakowsky v. Federal Express Corporation, No. 2:23-cv-02340-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn. July 17, 2025)).

Cases: WageHour Overtime ClassActions EvidenceDiscovery MinimumWage Procedure StateLawClaims