TRENTON (LN) — A state appeals panel unanimously affirmed class certification Tuesday for Paterson firefighters claiming the city shortchanged them on overtime pay under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, rejecting the city's arguments that the trial court moved too fast and improperly defined the class.
Adrian Evans and Kenneth Hicks filed the class action on July 17, 2023, alleging the city's collective bargaining agreement permits overtime compensation contrary to the NJWHL. The proposed class covers all individuals employed whose primary responsibility was firefighting duties, including those with titles firefighter, captain and battalion chief, from July 2017 through the present.
The city appealed the trial court's certification order, arguing class certification was premature because no formal discovery had taken place. The appellate division disagreed, citing its prior ruling in Myska v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. that a bright-line rule prohibiting class certification until discovery is complete is not required.
The panel also declined to consider the city's arguments about the class definition, which the city raised for the first time in its reply brief on reconsideration. "Raising an issue for the first time in a reply brief is improper," the panel wrote, quoting Berardo v. City of Jersey City.
On the merits, the appellate division found the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The city admitted through unanswered requests for admissions that it employed more than 40 firefighters since 2017, satisfying the numerosity requirement. The court found the named plaintiffs' claims were typical of the class because all were subject to the same work schedule and CBA terms, and the plaintiffs adequately represented the class since they shared the same injury—unpaid overtime.
The panel also upheld the trial court's finding that common questions predominate: whether firefighters were paid overtime after 40 hours per week, and whether the city was required to pay overtime under the NJWHL. The court found individual damages calculations irrelevant to the commonality analysis.
The city argued individual issues—including hours worked by each class member, compensatory time provided, and overtime paid—would predominate over common questions. The appellate division rejected this, saying those issues relate only to damages, not liability.
The panel affirmed.