Newark, NJ – A federal judge has rejected the City of Newark‘s attempt to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed by three police department employees who allege they were systematically underpaid for overtime work.
In an opinion issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the court declined to dismiss the claims brought by plaintiffs Vincent Deleva, Jamie Pinto, and Elddy Torres, who contend the city violated both the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
The lawsuit, filed as a proposed class and collective action, alleges Newark failed to properly calculate officers’ “regular rate” of pay by excluding several forms of contractual compensation when determining overtime wages.
Employees claim overtime calculations excluded bonuses
According to the amended complaint, overtime should have been calculated using a regular rate that included several additional forms of compensation paid under the police department’s collective bargaining agreement.
The employees allege Newark improperly excluded compensation such as longevity pay, stress pay for rotating or nontraditional shifts, detective pay, Bomb Squad and Emergency Response Team stipends, and payments for K-9 assignments.
Because federal law generally requires overtime to be paid at one-and-one-half times an employee’s regular rate of pay, the plaintiffs argue excluding those payments resulted in officers receiving less overtime compensation than required.
The lawsuit seeks unpaid wages on behalf of the named plaintiffs as well as other similarly situated employees who may have been affected by the same payroll calculations.
City argued dispute belongs in arbitration
Newark asked the federal court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the dispute should instead be resolved through the grievance and arbitration procedures contained in the police union’s collective bargaining agreement.
The city contended those contractual procedures governed disputes over employee compensation.
The court rejected that argument at this stage of the litigation, allowing the wage claims to continue in federal court rather than requiring immediate arbitration.
The ruling does not determine whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail. Instead, it means the lawsuit survives Newark’s motion to dismiss and may proceed through additional litigation.
Judge raises standing questions involving certain claims
Although the court denied dismissal, U.S. District Judge Michael E. Farbiarz identified a separate issue involving constitutional standing.
In a footnote accompanying the opinion, the judge questioned whether each named plaintiff has standing to pursue every category of alleged unpaid compensation if they never personally received certain specialty payments.
For example, the court noted it is “doubtful” that an employee who never received a K-9 stipend could seek damages based on overtime calculations involving canine assignment pay.
The judge ordered the plaintiffs to file a letter by Aug. 7 explaining how they intend to address the potential standing issue.
According to the order, plaintiffs may seek permission to amend their complaint, submit additional legal briefing, or pursue another procedural approach.
That issue could affect which claims remain in the lawsuit as the case moves forward but does not presently end the litigation.
Potential impact beyond the three named plaintiffs
Because the lawsuit was filed as a proposed class and collective action, the outcome could ultimately affect additional current and former Newark police employees if the court certifies a broader class.
Cases involving overtime calculations under the Fair Labor Standards Act frequently focus on what types of compensation must legally be included in an employee’s regular hourly rate. Courts have repeatedly held that many forms of nondiscretionary bonuses and specialty pay must be factored into overtime calculations, although the specific requirements often depend on the facts of each case and the applicable employment agreements.
The litigation remains in its early stages, and the court has not yet ruled on the merits of the employees’ wage claims.
Local Impact
If the plaintiffs ultimately succeed, the case could have financial implications for the City of Newark and potentially other public employers that use similar payroll practices. The litigation may also influence how municipalities calculate overtime for police officers and other employees who receive specialty pay, longevity compensation or assignment-based stipends.
Sources
- U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
- Deleva et al. v. City of Newark, No. 25-cv-2256
- Amended Complaint
- Opinion and Order issued by U.S. District Judge Michael E. Farbiarz
FAQ
- Who filed the lawsuit? Newark police employees Vincent Deleva, Jamie Pinto and Elddy Torres filed the proposed class and collective action.
- What do they allege? They claim the City of Newark underpaid overtime by excluding certain forms of compensation when calculating their regular rate of pay.
- Did the judge rule the city violated the law? No. The court only denied the city’s motion to dismiss. The merits of the claims have not yet been decided.
- What issue did the judge raise? The court questioned whether each plaintiff has standing to pursue claims involving specialty payments they may never have personally received.
- What happens next? The plaintiffs must respond to the court’s standing concerns before the litigation continues.
Key Points
- A federal judge refused to dismiss a proposed class-action overtime lawsuit against the City of Newark.
- Police employees allege Newark improperly excluded specialty pay and bonuses when calculating overtime wages.
- The court allowed the case to continue but ordered plaintiffs to address potential standing issues involving certain compensation claims.
