In a unanimous decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the 2019 New Jersey Wage Theft Act’s amendments to the Wage and Hours Law (WHL) and the Wage Payment Law (WPL) should not apply retroactively to claims that accrued before the amendments' effective date. The case, Maia v. IEW Construction Group, involved plaintiffs who filed a class action complaint against their former employer, IEW Construction Group, alleging unpaid "pre-shift" and "post-shift" work.
The plaintiffs aimed to utilize the Wage Theft Amendments, which extended the limitations period for WHL claims from two to six years, allowed recovery of liquidated and treble damages as well as attorneys’ fees and costs for both WHL and WPL claims, and created a new statutory cause of action against employers for retaliation.
Initially, IEW successfully moved for partial dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint in trial court based on longstanding precedent that the Wage Theft Amendments should not be applied retroactively. However, upon appeal, the Appellate Division held that allowing plaintiffs to rely on these amendments did not constitute retroactive application of the law. They referenced language from a previous New Jersey Supreme Court decision in W.S. v. Hildreth (2023), stating that applying current law at the time a complaint is filed is prospective rather than retroactive.
The New Jersey Civil Justice Institute (NJCJI), in its amicus brief supporting IEW, argued that both plaintiffs and the Appellate Division misinterpreted Hildreth. NJCJI explained that New Jersey case law requires courts to conduct a multi-step analysis when legislation changes legal consequences of acts predating its effective date. NJCJI contended that Hildreth only concerned procedural prerequisites to filing suit and did not trigger retroactivity analysis since it did not alter legal consequences but merely affected procedural hurdles.
Justice Fasciale, writing for a unanimous Court, agreed with NJCJI's arguments against applying the Wage Theft Amendments retroactively. He stated that Hildreth was distinguishable because it did not create new damages or change rights and responsibilities as the Wage Theft Amendments did. Adopting the Appellate Division's interpretation would have undermined decades of precedent regarding retroactive application of laws.
As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the Appellate Division’s decision and reinstated the trial court’s order partially dismissing plaintiffs' claims under the Wage Theft Amendments.
Copies of both NJCJI’s amicus curiae brief and Justice Fasciale's unanimous decision are available online. NJCJI’s in-house counsel Alex Daniel Esq., along with Ryan T. Warden Esq., represented NJCJI in this case.
