By: Ty Hyderally, Esq. and Kenny Delgado

In Martinez v. T. Slack Environmental Services, Inc., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirm in part an important question for employers and employees pursuing wage-and-hour claims: whether workers can bring representative actions without satisfying traditional class action requirements and reversed in part the second question about what statute of limitations applies to various wage claims.

Background

Juan Martinez, a former laborer for T. Slack Environmental Services, alleged that the company underpaid workers on public projects, improperly calculated overtime, failed to compensate certain off-the-clock work, and underpaid earned sick leave benefits. He sought relief on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (WHL), Prevailing Wage Act (PWA), and Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL). The Trial Court ruled in favor of Martinez deciding that representative action did not need class certification and that the representative action did not need to include evidence for other parties in the class. The Court also retroactively applied the six-year look-back period which was established in Maia v. IEW Construction Group, 257 N.J. 330 (2024)

The employer appealed the trial court’s decision allowing the case to proceed as a representative action and disputed the six-year look-back period applied to the claims.

What does it mean?

1. Representative Actions Are Not the Same as Class Actions

The Appellate Division reaffirmed its recent decision in Cano v. County Concrete Corp., holding that claims under the WHL and PWA may proceed as representative actions without satisfying the requirements of New Jersey’s class action rule.

The court emphasized that the statutes expressly allow workers to bring claims on behalf of themselves and other “similarly situated” employees. Unlike federal wage-and-hour law, New Jersey’s statutes do not require formal class certification or an opt-in process before similarly situated workers can be represented in the litigation.

The Court reasoned that the statute was written with full knowledge of the federal class actions rules and chose not to include that language. Therefore, employers facing wage-and-hour litigation may confront broader representative claims even when plaintiffs have not sought or obtained class certification.

2. Plaintiffs Need Not Immediately Identify Every Similarly Situated Worker

The court rejected the employer’s argument that Martinez was required to present evidence from other employees before proceeding. The complaint itself sufficiently put the employer on notice that the claims were being asserted on behalf of similarly situated workers.

The decision reflects the remedial purpose of New Jersey’s wage statutes and suggests courts will take a practical approach to representative wage claims.

The Court’s reasoning creates an easier path to pursuing wage claims on behalf of co-workers, particularly where the alleged pay practices apply uniformly across a workforce.

3. The Wage and Hour Law’s Six-Year Limitations Period Is Not Retroactive

The court reversed the trial court’s application of a six-year look-back period to the WHL and related ESLL claims.

Relying on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Maia v. IEW Construction Group, the Appellate Division held that the 2019 amendment extending the WHL’s statute of limitations from two years to six years applies only prospectively. For conduct occurring before August 6, 2019, the prior two-year limitations period remains in effect.

Why This Decision Matters

The Martinez decision strengthens employees’ ability to pursue representative wage claims under New Jersey law while also clarifying the applicable limitations periods for different wage statutes. For employers, the case highlights the importance of maintaining compliant pay practices, particularly on public works projects where prevailing wage obligations can create exposure reaching back six years.

For New Jersey employers and practitioners, Martinez is another significant development in the ongoing expansion and clarification of the state’s wage-and-hour laws. Reinforcing the strength of New Jersey’s statutory and common law protections is typically at the forefront of the Court’s mind. Thus, knowing how to navigate and use these powerful tools is crucial for a worker seeking protection.

If you have any questions regarding your rights as an employee, you should seek an experienced attorney who concentrates in employment law. Our firm has been concentrating in employment law for over twenty-three (23) years!

En nuestra firma hablamos español. This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice regarding your particular set of facts. This blog may constitute attorney advertising. This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state or jurisdiction.