Wage and Hour Defense Blog

The complex web of federal and state wage and hour laws create potentially devastating risk of exposure for employers.  Years of possible liability for yet unknown claims, liquidated damages, shifting attorneys’ fees, not to mention the risk of class or collective suit, can quickly transform seemingly minor and technical irregularities into expensive complications.  And for companies that partner with other entities to meet their staffing needs, resolving this risk of liability is a critical piece of their business operations.

Quite often, the quick solution for this concern is through a traditional business arrangement: contractual indemnification.  Shifting risk of loss via contract is fairly standard, especially as courts generally enforce the unambiguous terms of the parties’ agreement.  Yet employers should take note of a concerning trend among courts across the country, which have in some cases refused to enforce indemnification agreements in Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) matters on public policy grounds.

In Guthrie v. Rainbow Fencing Inc., 113 F.4^th 300 (2d Cir. 2024), the Second Circuit weighed in on a brewing dispute among New York district courts as to whether (and how) a plaintiff’s allegations may establish Article III standing to pursue wage notice or wage statement claims under New York’s Wage Theft Prevention Act (“WTPA”) in federal court. 

Basic Requirements of the WTPA

The WTPA requires covered businesses to provide employees with both: (1) a notice, at the time of hiring, outlining their rate of pay, allowances, certain healthcare benefits, among other things; and (2) wage statements, each time wages are paid, describing the calculation of regular and overtime pay, along with other related information regarding pay deductions or allowances.

Even minor compliance errors with these statutory requirements can expose businesses to liability.  Recoverable damages for an individual plaintiff’s wage notice and wage statement claims are capped at a combined total of $10,000; however, when asserted on behalf of a large putative class, WTPA damages can potentially eclipse any claims for alleged underpayments, which will create significant potential exposure for businesses.