- in United States
- within Employment and HR, Law Practice Management and Intellectual Property topic(s)
On June 29, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued an important decision in Martinez v. T. Slack Environmental Services, Inc., Docket No. A-1008-24, addressing representative wage-and-hour actions and the applicable statutes of limitations under New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law (WHL), Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) and Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL). The court held that WHL and PWA claims may proceed as representative actions without certification under Rule 4:32-1. The court also clarified that the 6-year limitations period applicable to WHL claims following a 2019 statutory amendment does not apply retroactively to conduct occurring before Aug. 6, 2019. By contrast, the court held that PWA claims are subject to a 6-year limitations period.
Background
The plaintiff, an hourly laborer employed by a New Jersey contractor, performed work on both public and private projects. He alleged that the employer failed to pay the appropriate prevailing wage for certain work, improperly calculated overtime using a lower rather than blended or weighted-average rate, failed to compensate him for certain off-the-clock work and improperly calculated sick leave wages.
The plaintiff asserted claims under the PWA, WHL and ESLL on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees. During discovery, the employer provided the names and contact information of its hourly employees.
In December 2024, the trial court certified the matter as a representative action and designated the plaintiff as the representative of the employer’s current and former employees. The trial court also applied a 6-year lookback period to the overtime claims.
The employer appealed, arguing, among other things, that the plaintiff was required to satisfy the requirements for class certification under Rule 4:32-1 and that the 6-year lookback period was improper.
Representative Actions Do Not Require Class Certification
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determination that the claims could proceed as a representative action without traditional class certification under Rule 4:32-1. Relying on the statutory language of the WHL and PWA, as well as its recent decision in Cano v. County Concrete Corp., 483 N.J. Super. 459 (App. Div. 2026), the court concluded that both statutes independently authorize an employee to pursue claims on behalf of similarly situated employees. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff had to submit additional proof of similarly situated employees at this stage, noting that the complaint gave notice and the employer had already identified roughly fifteen employees in discovery. The court also declined to adopt the FLSA’s opt-in, conditional-certification framework, holding that neither the WHL nor the PWA requires a named plaintiff to identify every similarly situated employee before the case may proceed.
2-Year Lookback for WHL/ESLL; 6-Year Lookback for PWA Claims
The Appellate Division separately addressed the applicable limitations period for WHL and incorporated ESLL claims. In 2019, the WHL was amended to establish a 6-year limitations period for claims seeking unpaid minimum wages or overtime. The amendment became effective Aug. 6, 2019. The court relied on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Maia v. IEW Construction Group, 257 N.J. 330 (2024), which held that the amended limitations provision applies prospectively to conduct occurring on or after Aug. 6, 2019, and does not apply retroactively to conduct occurring before that date.
Because the plaintiff’s action was filed in February 2020, the trial court had applied a 6-year lookback reaching back to February 2014. The Appellate Division reversed that portion of the trial court’s order, concluding that the 6-year limitations period could not be applied to pre-Aug. 6, 2019 conduct. The court likewise reversed the 6-year lookback as applied to the incorporated ESLL claims. By contrast, the PWA claim remained subject to New Jersey’s 6-year limitations period because the court treated it as analogous to a breach of contract claim.
What the Decision Means for New Jersey Employers
Martinez is significant for employers facing representative wage-and-hour claims in New Jersey. The decision confirms that employees may pursue representative claims under the WHL and the PWA without satisfying the traditional class-certification requirements of Rule 4:32-1.
The decision also highlights the importance of analyzing the applicable limitations period on a claim-by-claim and conduct-by-conduct basis. Employers should also expect that this decision may encourage more representative wage-and-hour actions in New Jersey courts going forward.
Practical Takeaways
Employers with public works operations should review prevailing wage classifications, blended overtime calculations, timekeeping for off-the-clock work and sick leave pay practices, especially when employees split time between public and private work or perform multiple job types in the same week.
Employers are encouraged to consult with counsel to understand how these changes affect their operations and to ensure policies are both compliant and strategically aligned.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
