Labor Attorney New Jersey Defeats Wage Claim

The client was the chief executive officer of a large scale manufacturing company operating nationwide with a structured workforce and internal compliance systems.

A former security employee who had voluntarily resigned filed a wage lawsuit alleging unpaid compensation for alleged additional duties, overtime hours, and work performed on holidays.

The plaintiff claimed that changes to work schedules resulted in expanded responsibilities that were never properly compensated.

Upon consultation, labor attorney New Jersey counsel conducted a detailed review of employment records, job descriptions, internal policies, and historical scheduling data.

The legal team identified inconsistencies between the plaintiff’s allegations and the documented scope of duties.

Early case assessment confirmed that the claims were primarily based on subjective assertions rather than verifiable evidence.

Evidence revealed that the schedule modification cited by the plaintiff was initiated at the request of the security staff, not imposed by management.

The adjustment was designed to reduce workload intensity while allowing longer consecutive rest periods.

There was no increase in assigned duties, no expansion of job responsibilities, and no operational change that would justify additional compensation.

The defense demonstrated that the employee’s position fell within a legally recognized classification that excluded eligibility for overtime and holiday premium pay.

Payroll records, attendance logs, and supervisory testimony confirmed that no compensable overtime or holiday work had been performed beyond the agreed schedule.

The labor attorney New Jersey team emphasized that statutory wage protections apply based on actual work performed, not hypothetical assumptions.

The court determined that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish unpaid wages.

The employee’s submissions did not demonstrate additional work, extended hours, or uncompensated labor beyond the documented schedule.

In contrast, the employer’s records were consistent, contemporaneous, and corroborated by multiple sources.

Based on the evidence presented, the court ruled that the wage claims lacked factual and legal foundation.

The court dismissed all causes of action in their entirety and ordered that litigation costs be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision reaffirmed that wage claims must be supported by concrete proof of compensable labor.