What happened?

On May 15, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the amendments (Chapter 212) to the Wage Payment Law (WPL) and the Wage and Hour Law (WHL) apply only to future cases, after the effective date on August 6, 2019.

What are the details?

Key Bites for Employers:

• In 2019, New Jersey amended the Wage Payment Law (WPL) and Wage-Hour Law (WHL) statutes, adding remedies (like liquidated damages and attorney fees), a retaliation claim, and extending the statute of limitations, from 2 to 6 years. Chapter 212 stated that the “act shall take effect immediately.”
  • These amendments are generally aimed at prohibiting “wage theft.”

• In April 2022, 2 employees filed a class action alleging violations of the WPL and WHL against their former employer IEW Construction Group.
  • They were hired between May 2019 and April 2020.
  • They were laid off in November 2021.
  • Filled a lawsuit in April 2022, seeking damages under Chapter 212, a labor law.
  • The employer argued that under longstanding precedent, the Wage Theft Amendments should not be applied retroactively.

• The Court held that since the amendments affected the duties and liabilities, any claims for new damages or remedies added can be brought on or after August 6, 2019.

For a breakdown of the decision.

For a general breakdown.

Business Considerations

• Employers should know that the Court’s decision is a win for employers in an employee-friendly New Jersey, as it narrows and clarifies the window for potential liability under the state’s amended wage statutes.
• Employers should use this decision as a reminder to review their pay practices to ensure compliance.
• Employers should ensure they are fully compliant with the current Wage and Hours Law (“WHL”) and the Wage Payment Law (“WPL”), paying employees for all hours worked, including “pre-shift” and “post-shift” work.
• Employers should establish clear policies and procedures to prevent wage theft and retaliation in the workplace, including maintaining accurate records of hours worked and wages paid and implementing a process for employees to report concerns without fear of retaliation.

Source References

• Maia v. IEW Construction Group

This communication is intended solely for the purpose of conveying information. The present post might incorporate hyperlinks directing readers to websites managed by third-party entities. The inclusion of any links within this communication is meant to serve as points of reference and could encompass opinion articles from various law firms, articles from HR associations, official websites, news releases, and documents of government agencies, and other relevant third-party sources. Vensure has no authority over these external websites and bears no responsibility for their content. Furthermore, Vensure does not endorse the materials present on these websites. The contents of this communication should not be interpreted as legal advice or as a legal standpoint concerning specific facts or scenarios. Nor should it be deemed an exhaustive compilation of facts potentially pertinent to federal, state, or local laws. It is strongly advised that employers solicit legal guidance from an employment attorney when undertaking actions in response to any legal updates provided. This is due to the possibility of future alterations occurring in federal, state, and local laws, regulations, as well as the directives and guidelines issued by governing agencies. These changes may transpire at any given time, potentially rendering certain portions of the content within this update void or inaccurate.