Background
Juan Martinez worked as an hourly laborer for T. Slack Environmental Services from 2006 to 2019, employed at the “D” prevailing wage rate. During this period, T. Slack employed approximately six to ten hourly laborers. Martinez performed work classified as “B” and “C” laborer functions on public works projects but was paid at the lower “D” rate, particularly on private projects.
Martinez alleged T. Slack failed to pay the correct blended overtime rate when he performed both public and private work in the same week or worked under different job titles requiring different wage rates. He also claimed unpaid “off-the-clock” hours, including equipment transportation and site travel, and improper calculation of earned sick leave wages using the lower private rate. In February 2020, he filed suit individually and on behalf of similarly situated hourly employees, seeking violations of the Prevailing Wage Act (PWA), Wage and Hour Law (WHL), and Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL).
The trial court in December 2024 certified a representative action designating Martinez as representative of current and former employees and established a six-year look-back period for claims. T. Slack appealed, arguing no representative action was permissible under state law independent of class-action rules.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division held that the plain language of the WHL and PWA permits representative actions independent of formal class certification under the New Jersey Rules of Court. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that representative actions must comply with class-action procedural requirements, finding that the Legislature, when enacting the WHL in 1966, was aware of the federal Portal-to-Portal Act’s restrictions on representative actions but did not include comparable limiting language. The statutory phrase “similarly situated” in both statutes is sufficient to authorize representative treatment without requiring proof of multiple other employees at the certification stage. Martinez’s complaint adequately put defendants on notice of similarly situated employees, and defendants had already received the employees’ names and contact information during discovery.
However, the court reversed the trial court’s application of a six-year look-back period to WHL and ESLL claims. Relying on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Maia v. IEW Construction Group, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations amendment to the WHL, effective August 6, 2019, applies prospectively only to conduct occurring on or after that date. Therefore, a two-year statute of limitations applies to Martinez’s WHL and ESLL claims. The court affirmed application of the six-year statute of limitations to PWA claims, which constitute breach-of-contract claims subject to the general six-year contract limitations period.
Key Takeaways
- Representative actions under New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law and Prevailing Wage Act do not require formal class certification and operate independently of civil procedure class-action rules.
- Named plaintiffs need not present evidence of multiple similarly situated employees at the certification stage; the complaint’s allegation of such employees, combined with defendants’ notice, suffices to proceed as a representative action.
- The six-year statute of limitations amendment to the Wage and Hour Law applies prospectively only—conduct before August 6, 2019, is subject to the two-year limitations period.
- Prevailing Wage Act claims are treated as breach-of-contract claims, properly subject to the standard six-year contract statute of limitations regardless of when the work occurred.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly expands access to wage litigation for employees of small employers in New Jersey. By allowing representative actions without formal class certification, the ruling removes procedural barriers that might otherwise prevent wage claims from being economically viable, particularly for workers at small firms earning modest wages. The decision protects the remedial purposes of New Jersey’s wage-protection statutes and aligns state law with federal Fair Labor Standards Act principles while declining to import the federal Portal-to-Portal Act’s restrictive opt-in procedures.
The clarification of applicable statutes of limitations is critical for prevailing wage and wage-and-hour litigation. The ruling confirms that employees have a two-year window to pursue non-prevailing-wage violations but a full six years for prevailing wage contract claims, creating different strategic considerations for wage-claim plaintiffs. This holding protects public-works employees whose wage claims span periods before and after August 2019, ensuring they are not subjected to retroactive application of new limitations periods that could eliminate viable claims.