New Jersey Appellate Division Confirms Representative Wage Claims Are Not Class Actions

Martinez v. T. Slack Environmental Services, Inc.  represents one of the most significant procedural wage-and-hour decisions issued by the Appellate Division this year. In a published opinion, the court confirmed that representative actions under New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law (WHL) and Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) are fundamentally different from traditional class actions under Rule 4:32-1.  For employers, contractors, and employment attorneys, the decision changes the litigation landscape.

Representative Actions Are Not Class Actions

The central issue before the court was whether an employee seeking relief on behalf of similarly situated workers must satisfy New Jersey’s class certification requirements.  The Appellate Division answered no.

Relying heavily on its recent decision in Cano v. County Concrete Corp., 483 N.J. Super. 459 (App. Div. 2026), the court held that the language of both the Wage and Hour Law and the Prevailing Wage Act creates a statutory representative action that exists independently of Rule 4:32-1. Because the Legislature chose the phrase “similarly situated” rather than incorporating the procedural requirements governing class actions, plaintiffs are not required to establish numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, or predominance before pursuing claims on behalf of other employees.  That distinction is significant.  Class certification often represents one of the most expensive and heavily litigated stages of complex litigation. By removing that procedural hurdle, the Appellate Division has made it considerably easier for employees to pursue representative wage claims involving multiple workers.

A Win for Employees—but Not Without Limits

Although the court affirmed the representative action, it rejected one important aspect of the trial court’s ruling. The Law Division had permitted Wage and Hour Law claims to proceed using a six-year look-back period. The Appellate Division held that this was inconsistent with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Maia v. IEW Construction Group, 257 N.J. 330 (2024).  The Supreme Court previously held that the 2019 amendments extending the Wage and Hour Law’s statute of limitations from two years to six years apply prospectively only. As a result, wage claims arising before August 6, 2019,  remain subject to the prior two-year limitations period. The Appellate Division therefore reversed that portion of the trial court’s order.

Prevailing Wage Claims Remain Different

The court reached a different conclusion with respect to claims brought under the Prevailing Wage Act.  Unlike the Wage and Hour Law, the Prevailing Wage Act contains no express statute of limitations governing civil actions. Relying on prior precedent, the Appellate Division concluded that prevailing wage claims are analogous to breach of contract actions because contractors are obligated by statute to include prevailing wage requirements in public contracts.  Accordingly, prevailing wage claims continue to be governed by New Jersey’s six-year statute of limitations applicable to contract actions.  The practical result is that companion claims arising from the same employment relationship may now be subject to different limitation periods depending upon the statutory basis for recovery.

Practical Impact for Employers

Employers defending wage-and-hour litigation should recognize several important consequences of Martinez.  First, plaintiffs no longer need to navigate the often-lengthy class certification process before seeking relief on behalf of similarly situated employees under the WHL or PWA. Second, employers should expect plaintiffs’ counsel to rely heavily on Martinez and Cano when attempting to expand wage cases beyond the named plaintiff. Third, employers cannot assume that individualized damage calculations or relatively small workforces will defeat representative treatment. The Appellate Division expressly rejected arguments that the absence of Rule 4:32 certification standards prevented representative actions from proceeding. Finally, employers working on public projects should remember that prevailing wage claims may expose them to six years of potential liability even where companion Wage and Hour Law claims are limited to two years for pre-August 2019 conduct.

Looking Ahead

The Appellate Division’s decision continues a broader trend in New Jersey toward expansive enforcement of employee wage protections. Together with Cano, Martinez reinforces that New Jersey courts view the Wage and Hour Law, Earned Sick Leave Law, and Prevailing Wage Act as remedial statutes intended to be construed broadly in favor of employee protections.  For employers, compliance with wage-and-hour laws has never been more important. Seemingly routine payroll practices involving overtime calculations, prevailing wage classifications, or compensation for pre- and post-shift activities can quickly evolve into representative litigation involving an entire workforce.

As Martinez demonstrates, defending those cases may now begin without the procedural protections traditionally afforded by class certification.

If your business is facing a wage-and-hour dispute—or you need guidance regarding prevailing wage compliance—experienced counsel can help evaluate potential exposure and develop strategies before isolated payroll issues become representative litigation.