Earlier this month in Maia v. IEW Construction Group, the New Jersey Appellate Division confronted a critical issue concerning this state’s wage and hour laws. The case centered on amendments passed by the state Legislature in August 2019 to the Wage and Hour Law (WHL) and the Wage Payment Law (WPL), and whether the enhanced remedies in the amendments would apply to claims that may have accrued prior to their passage.

As background, the WHL mandates the payment of overtime to almost all New Jersey employees who work in excess of 40 hours per week. The WHL also establishes a minimum wage for employees. The WPL ensures the timely manner, mode, and payment of wages to employees. Since both laws are intended to be remedial in nature, New Jersey courts interpret them liberally to provide aggrieved employees the maximum remedies available to them.

In 2019, the Legislature passed the Wage Theft Act. This law amended portions of both the WHL and WPL, strengthening the remedies available to employees while also significantly lengthening the time period within which employees can file suit and claim damages. For example, the amendments lengthened the “look-back” period for the WHL from two years to six years. The look-back period refers to how many years prior to the filing of the complaint a plaintiff can allege he or she is owed damages. Finally, the amendments also added language under both the WHL and WPL allowing a plaintiff to recover liquidated damages of up to 200% of the wages due.

The plaintiffs in Maia alleged that their employer violated both the WHL and the WPL by failing to pay them for “pre-shift” and “post-shift” work. The plaintiffs asserted that they were entitled to the six-year look-back period because they filed their complaint after the 2019 amendments, notwithstanding the fact that certain alleged violations had occurred before then.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were barred from recovering statutory remedies that were unavailable to them prior to the August 2019 amendments. In addition, defendants asserted that, since the amendments took effect immediately, the new laws only applied prospectively. To apply the new remedies to conduct complained of that occurred prior to August 2019, the defendants said, would be applying the amendments retroactively.

The Appellate Division agreed with the plaintiffs that, since they filed their complaint “nearly twenty months” after the relevant portions of the 2019 amendments went into effect, they were entitled to the six-year look-back period. The court found that the amendments were clear that they would be applied to claims made going forward after the passage of the new law in August 2019 as of the date of the filing of the complaint. Although there was no express language in the statute extending the six-year look-back period to the WPL, the court cited to statements in the legislative history evidencing the legislature’s intent to provide workers “the same opportunity” to recover for violations of the WHL and WPL, and that included the six-year look-back period.

In coming to this conclusion, the Appellate Division relied on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent decision in W.S. v. Hildreth. In W.S., the plaintiff filed suit in 2019, one month after the legislature amended a law that relaxed procedural requirements for filing a lawsuit. The defendants argued that since the claim accrued in 2016, the previous version of the law applied, not the version in existence at the time of filing the complaint. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding instead that it was required to apply the law that existed at the time of the filing of the complaint.

In reliance on the Supreme Court’s analysis and holding in W.S., the Appellate Division made clear that the proper analysis for the look-back period is from the date of filing the complaint, and not the date on which the violation is said to have occurred.

However, the Appellate Division cautioned that, since the plaintiffs’ complaint was only alleging a failure to pay pre- and post-shift time, it was indicative of a WHL claim for failure to pay overtime. The court noted it was “dubious” that the plaintiffs’ allegations would also constitute a violation of the WPL.

Going forward, the defendants in Maia may seek Certification before the New Jersey Supreme Court. We will continue to monitor this case and provide any appropriate updates.

[View source.]