Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with wage and hour issues, (Nov 21, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

5th Cir.: Employees were salaried, ‘higher-income bona fide executives’; FLSA exemption applied. Four former employees of an engineering and construction services firm sued the employer to recover unpaid overtime under the FLSA, alleging the company failed to pay them overtime for working “hours that exceeded 40 hours per week.” Each employee held managerial or procurement roles on a Texas project and earned annual salaries ranging from $130,000 to $250,000, and their offer letters designated them as exempt from overtime. After the employer initially misstated its affirmative defense under the wrong statutory subsection, the employees moved for judgment on the pleadings and partial summary judgment, while the employer sought summary judgment asserting that the employees were exempt “because they were paid a fixed salary, ‘highly compensated[,] and performed at least one exempt duty.’” The magistrate recommended dismissing the case, denying the employees’ motions, and granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The district court adopted the recommendations in part. The court denied the employees’ motions, granted the employer’s summary judgment motion, and the magistrate later granted costs. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the employer properly amended its pleadings, the employees qualified as “higher-income bona fide executives,” and the magistrate had authority to tax costs ( Descant v. CTCI Americas, Inc. , No. 25-40112 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2025, unpublished)).

E.D. Pa.: Class certification for overtime claims rejected due to individualized proof requirements. Two Philadelphia Police Department ranking officers sued the City and several current and former commissioners and HR directors in their individual capacities, alleging they performed work during emergency periods since 2013, and were not paid overtime as required by Civil Service Regulation 31.06, in violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Fourteenth Amendment. After extensive discovery, the officers moved under Rule 23 to certify a class of approximately 230 ranking officers who purportedly performed unpaid emergency work. The court denied the motion for certification, finding that commonality and predominance were lacking, because determining liability and damages would require officer-by-officer, event-specific inquiries into whether work qualified as emergency overtime, whether it was authorized, and whether the City already compensated it. The court concluded that the individualized assessments required rendered the case unsuitable for class treatment under Rule 23(b)(3) ( Flacco v. Outlaw , No. 2:24-cv-04374-MAK (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2025)).

E.D. Tenn.: Court approval not required, authorized for ‘private-party FLSA settlement agreements.’ A sales coordinator for a freight brokerage and logistics company filed a collective action individually and on behalf of similarly-situated employees alleging that the employer required her to work extensive hours—including evenings and early mornings—without receiving overtime compensation, in violation of the FLSA. Following court-authorized notice to potential plaintiffs, the parties engaged in mediation and reached a settlement agreement. They jointly moved for permission to dismiss the case by stipulation without judicial approval of the settlement. The court granted the motion, holding that neither the text of the FLSA nor any binding Sixth Circuit authority requires or authorizes judicial approval of private-party FLSA settlements. Relying on recent district court decisions within the Circuit—particularly Gilstrap v. Sushinati LLC, 734 F. Supp. 3d 710 (S.D. Ohio 2024)—the court found that “[n]othing in the text of the FLSA, or in any Sixth Circuit case, requires or even authorizes court approval for private-party FLSA settlement agreements.” The court rejected policy arguments and found a “meaningful distinction between a Rule 23 class action and an FLSA collective action,” due to the opt-in nature of FLSA claims and the presence of counsel for all plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court granted the motion and permitted the parties to finalize their agreement and file a stipulation of dismissal ( Shelton v. Steam Logistics, LLC , No. 1:24-cv-00393-CLC-MJD (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2025)).

Cases: WageHour Overtime ClassActions WorkingTime MinimumWage Exemptions RemediesDamages CoverageLiability