WAGE-AND-HOUR LITIGATION
CD: Why does wage-and-hour litigation remain resilient even when other employment disputes rise or fall?
Boedeker: Wage-and-hour litigation remains resilient because it is driven by recurring, measurable and often systemic workplace practices. Unlike some employment claims that depend heavily on individual intent or isolated events, wage-and-hour claims often arise from payroll systems, timekeeping rules, meal and rest break practices, overtime classifications, rounding, off-the-clock work, regular-rate calculations and reimbursement policies. These practices apply across large groups of employees, making them eligible for class, collective and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)-style litigation. In the US, PAGA is a California statute that allows aggrieved employees to file lawsuits on behalf of the state to recover civil penalties for labour code violations. Even when economic conditions or enforcement priorities change, employers must continuously process time and pay, creating repeated avenues for interpretation. In addition, small per-employee underpayments can aggregate into significant exposure when applied across many workers and pay periods. This combination of objective records, recurring conduct, statutory penalties and group-wide impact helps explain why wage-and-hour litigation remains a durable and active area.
Olson: The maths drives wage-and-hour litigation. A 15 cent per hour timekeeping error is not worth any individual worker hiring a lawyer, but multiply it across a workforce of 2000 over three years, with potential liquidated damages and attorney fees, and you may have a case in the six or seven figures. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and its state equivalents were built for collective action enforcement, and the plaintiffs’ bar has developed expertise in identifying the systemic practices that support certification of a large group of current and former employees.
Jul-Sep 2026 issue
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
StoneTurn