Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Cases of note dealing with wage and hour issues, (May 29, 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.: Summary judgment denied due to disputed pay, employer status. A restaurant cook worked briefly for a tavern and was paid in cash during his employment. He worked 39.3 hours in his final week. The employee claims a manager terminated him by text and did not pay his final wages. The employer alleges that one of the owners terminated him in person, “handed him an envelope containing the full $707.39 owed, and watched [him] count the money and acknowledge the payment.” The employee filed suit alleging failure to pay minimum wages under the FLSA and Arizona wage laws. He moved for summary judgment. According to the employee, two corporate entities that owned and managed the company that operated the tavern were employers, as well as two individual defendants who each owned one of the corporate entities. The court denied the motion, holding that that the employee failed to show that the corporate entities “employed him for purposes of the Arizona Wage Act.” The court also found that the payroll record showing zero wages for the employee’s last week of work was ambiguous and did not establish payment, and that “interpretation of [the payroll] record is a genuine question of material fact to be resolved by a jury” (Silva v. Thunderbird Restaurants LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00629-ROS (D. Ariz. May 19, 2026)).

D. Mass.: Restaurant employee failed to provide evidence of similarly situated employees. A restaurant employee worked for one week at a restaurant and logged 72.2 hours. He spent fourteen hours on opening and cleaning duties. He sued the restaurant and its executives alleging they failed “to pay minimum wage and overtime to certain employees and retaining their tips unlawfully.” He alleged he received no base wage or salary and was allegedly “paid entirely in tips, because he is Chinese and they believed him to be undocumented.” He also alleged the restaurant kept part of his credit card tips. The employee moved for conditional certification under the FLSA. The court denied the motion because his lone affidavit did not show that the proposed collective was comprised of similarly situated employees. His account identified no other worker who was denied overtime. The court further found his statements about others’ tips were speculative and unsupported by personal knowledge or corroborating declarations. It also noted that no other employee had expressed interest in joining the suit (Cao v. Hungry Pot Dartmouth Inc., No. 1:24-cv-11797-JEK (D. Mass. May 12, 2026)).

D. Nev.: Peace officers’ wage and hour suit settles for $19 million. Peace officers sued the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department alleging it failed to pay overtime for pre- and post-shift activities. The parties settled the matter and applied to the court for final approval of class and collective action settlement, and the officers moved for approval of attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive awards. The court granted the motion and confirmed collective certification under the FLSA for settlement purposes. The court held the notice satisfied due process and enabled informed participation. The court found that the $19,000,000 settlement was “fair, reasonable, and adequate, considering…the risks of continued litigation, the value of finality, the complexity and duration of the proceedings,” among other things. The court awarded $7,600,000 in attorneys’ fees and found it “reasonable under a lodestar cross-check.” The court approved litigation costs in the amount of $81,825.60, and $70,990.00 in settlement administration expenses. The three class representatives received incentive awards totaling $45,000, and early opt-in plaintiffs received $1,000.00 each, totaling $89,000.00. The court dismissed the action with prejudice (Coyne v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, No. 2:22-cv-00475-APG-VCF (D. Nev. May 13, 2026)).

D.N.M.: Interlocutory appeal denied in pizza delivery drivers’ wage and hour case. Pizza delivery drivers filed suit alleging their employer failed to pay required minimum wages under the FLSA and failed to reimburse vehicle expenses. The court had previously determined that “under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Defendants must reimburse their pizza delivery drivers’ vehicle expenses ‘to the penny.’” The court had rejected the employer’s proposition that it could “use a reasonable approximation of these expenses.” The employer moved for interlocutory appeal, asking the court to certify for appeal “the proper standard for calculating delivery drivers’ vehicle expenses;” and “which party bears the burden of maintaining records of those expenses.” The court denied the motion. It held the employer identified no substantial ground for disagreement with controlling law or that “an appeal would materially advance the termination of this litigation” (West v. BAM! Pizza Management, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00209-SMD-JMR (D.N.M. Apr. 29, 2026)).

S.D.N.Y.: $4.5 million settlement approved in FLSA wage and hour suit. Employees of a not-for-profit corporation sued the company and related businesses alleging that they failed to pay proper wages under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). They brought a collective and class action covering nonexempt workers across multiple roles. The parties reached a settlement, and the employees moved for certification of a settlement class and approval of the class and FLSA settlement. They also moved for attorneys’ fees and expenses, and service awards. The companies did not oppose the motions. The court granted the motions and conditionally certified the class for settlement purposes. It found the workers were similarly situated under the FLSA. It conditionally approved the $4.5 million settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23. The court found that the agreement resulted from arm’s length negotiations, and that the relief was adequate given the risks and costs of continued litigation. The court approved $1.5 million in attorneys’ fees, $17,537.35 in expenses, and service awards of $10,000 to the two named plaintiffs. The nineteen opt-in plaintiffs who were deposed received deposition awards of $5,000 each, and the settlement administrator received $150,000 in fees. The court dismissed the action with prejudice (Neor v. Acacia Network, Inc. dba Acacia Network, No. 1:22-cv-04814-ER (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2026)).

S.D. Ohio: District court compels arbitration in dancer’s wage and hour case. An exotic dancer who worked at an adult entertainment club from 2014 to 2023 alleged that the employer paid no wages in violation of the FLSA, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA), and the Ohio Semi-Monthly Payment Act. The employee filed a collective action on behalf of herself and similarly situated workers. The employer moved to dismiss and stay proceedings pending arbitration, alleging that the dancer lacked standing to bring all claims, and in the alternative, that she signed an arbitration agreement when she applied to work at the club stipulating that disputes be resolved through arbitration. The district court denied the motions, finding that the dancer has standing and that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because its terms “unilaterally force[d] [the dancer] to release her claims,” and failed the first factor of the four factor test set forth in Stout v. J.D. Byrider, 228 F.3d. 709, 714 (6th Cir. 2000). On appeal, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and remanded, ordering the court to “evaluate Stout factors two through four.” The district court granted the motions. It held that the arbitration agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. The court found that the employee signed the agreement multiple times and failed to read it, which undermined claims of unfair formation. The court also determined that the dancer’s claims arose from the employment relationship and fell within the agreement’s scope. The court held that the federal wage claims were arbitrable under controlling precedent and Congress did not preclude arbitration. The court rejected waiver arguments because the employer had not engaged in litigation conduct inconsistent with arbitration. The court stayed the case pending arbitration (Hines v. National Entertainment Group, LLC dba Vanity, No. 2:23-cv-02952-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio May 18, 2026)).

Cases: WageHour Overtime CoverageLiability Immigration ClassActions RemediesDamages MinimumWage WorkingTime Procedure Arbitration EmployeeStatus