By: Walter Gonzalez, Esq. and Ty Hyderally, Esq.

March 25, 2026

Every so often, the New Jersey Supreme Court issues a decision that does more than resolve a dispute. It reshapes how an entire category of cases must be approached. The Court’s recent decision in Sergio Lopez v. Marmic LLC is one of those cases. [1] For years, employers and defense counsel have attempted to use a worker’s immigration status as both a shield and a sword in wage-and-hour litigation. That strategy has now been significantly curtailed.  The Court’s message is clear: if an employer allows someone to work, that work must be paid in accordance with New Jersey law, regardless of immigration status.

A Familiar Fact Pattern with High Stakes

Mr. Lopez was hired by Marmic LLC to perform work as the superintendent of a building. He worked for years, performing maintenance, cleaning, repairs, and tenant support. After an initial brief period of payment, the employer stopped paying wages and instead allowed the employee to live in an apartment in exchange for his labor. After the employment relationship ended, Mr. Lopez brought a wage claim under New Jersey law.  The lower courts ruled in favor of Marmic LLC, relying heavily on two points: the worker’s undocumented status and his inability to precisely document his hours.  Chief Justice Rabner, writing for an unanimous court, reversed the lower court’s decision.

No Conflict Between State Wage Laws and Federal Immigration Law

The Court took cognizance of the New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law (WHL), which requires employers to pay the minimum wage established by law and to pay overtime for work in excess of 40 hours per week.  N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4(a), (b)(1).  The Court also analyzed the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (WPL), which requires employers to “pay the full amount of wages due” an employee “at least twice” each “month, on regular paydays” fixed in advance.  N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.2.

The Court then balanced the WHL and the WPL with a potential conflict imbedded in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A).

The New Jersey Supreme Court took fact of the IRCA that states that, “[i]t is unlawful . . . to hire . . . for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien . . . with respect to such employment.”  The IRCA also makes it unlawful “to continue to employ [an] alien” knowing the person “is (or has become) an unauthorized alien.”  Id. at (a)(2).

The Court ruled that the IRCA was not in conflict with the WHL and the WPL. The Court ruled that while the IRCA prohibits hiring or continuing to employ undocumented workers, it does not relieve employers of their obligation to pay for work already performed.

The Court also recognized a practical reality: allowing employers to avoid wage obligations because an employee was undocumented, would create a perverse incentive for employers to knowingly hire undocumented workers and then refuse to pay them based upon a reliance on the IRCA.

Hoffman Plastic: Limited, Not Expansive

Employers often rely on Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 149-50 (2002), to argue that undocumented workers are barred from recovery for unpaid wages. The Court rejected that expansive reading. The Court noted that Hoffman Plastic was limited to the recovery of backpay only.  Backpay is defined as pay that the employee would receive but for the wrongful termination.  The Court refused to interpret Hoffman Plastic as standing for the proposition that employers did not have to pay employees for work already performed.  The Court joined the majority of jurisdictions in reaffirming that workers, regardless of status, may recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime for labor they actually performed.

Bartering

An interesting outcrop from the Lopez decision had to do with the employer arguing that Mr. Lopez employment was not employment for wages but rather a form of barter of receipt of housing for the provision of services. The Court rejected this argument.  The Court noted that New Jersey’s wage statutes broadly define “employee” and do not permit employers to contract around statutory wage protections.

Evidential Issues

The Court also dealt with some evidentiary issues pertaining to the utilization of immigration-related evidence to attack credibility.  In Lopez, the trial court relied heavily on the employee’s use of an invalid Social Security number to find him not credible and deny relief.  The Supreme Court found that approach improper.  The Court noted that evidence tied to immigration status, including the use of an invalid Social Security number, carries a substantial risk of undue prejudice and must be carefully scrutinized under New Jersey Rule of Evidence 403. If such evidence serves no purpose other than to suggest immigration status, it should be excluded. More importantly, it cannot be used as a basis to deny recovery in a wage-and-hour case involving work already performed.

Practical Takeaways

• Wage protections are broad, remedial, and enforceable regardless of immigration status.
• Wage laws apply to all workers permitted to perform labor
• Informal or “off-the-books” arrangements do not avoid liability
• Immigration-related defenses are limited and increasingly scrutinized

 Conclusion

The Court’s decision in Lopez reflects a broader principle that runs through New Jersey employment law: employers cannot benefit from the labor of workers while avoiding the obligations that come with it.  Where work is performed, wages are due. Courts will not allow technical defenses or evidentiary shortcuts to obscure that fundamental rule.

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.

[1] Sergio Lopez v. Marmic LLC (A-27-24) (089632) Argued October 6, 2025 — Decided March 19, 2026.