May 18, 2026
Undocumented Workers and Wage Rights: What a New Jersey Supreme Court Case Means and How New York Law Compares
By Charlotte Pramer
A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision reinforces an important principle in wage and hour law: employers must pay workers for work performed, regardless of the workers’ immigration status. This position aligns closely with how wage and hour laws are applied in both New York State and New York City.
The New Jersey Supreme Court Decision
In Lopez v. Marmic, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a worker who lacked valid work authorization could still pursue claims for unpaid wages under state wage laws.
The case involved a building superintendent who had provided an invalid Social Security number when he was hired. After discovering the issue, the employer stopped paying wages and instead allowed the worker to live in an apartment in exchange for performing work. Lower courts treated the arrangement as a barter agreement and dismissed the worker’s wage claims.
The state’s highest court disagreed. It concluded that when an employer “permits or suffers” someone to work, the employer must comply with wage laws. Allowing employers to avoid paying wages because a worker lacks documentation would create incentives for exploitation and undermine the purpose of wage protections.
The decision makes clear that employers cannot rely on immigration status to avoid minimum wage or overtime obligations once work has been performed.
How New York Law Treats Undocumented Workers
While the Lopez decision marks the first time New Jersey’s highest court has addressed this issue, the same approach has long been applied in New York State and New York City.
Both state and local authorities in New York emphasize that the wage laws apply to all workers. The New York State Department of Labor and New York City agencies enforce minimum wage, overtime, and wage-theft protections without regard to immigration status. Undocumented workers who are not paid properly may file claims with the agencies or bring civil actions to recover unpaid wages. Employers are prohibited from threatening workers with immigration consequences in response to wage complaints. These policies are designed to ensure that labor standards apply uniformly across the workforce and that vulnerable workers are not pushed into exploitative conditions.
Limitation Under Federal Law
An important limitation under federal law stems from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB. The Court distinguished between wages due for work performed and wages for work that would have been performed had the employee not been terminated. Employees who were not authorized to work in the United States due to federal immigration laws may recover wages for work actually performed, but generally may not recover wages for work the employees would have performed had their employment continued.
This distinction explains why many wage cases involving undocumented workers focus on recovering unpaid wages, overtime, and other compensation tied to work that already occurred.
Bottom Line
Once work is performed, employees must be paid, regardless of their immigration status.
For questions regarding employment law compliance, please contact Sheryl Galler at sgaller@booklawllp.com.
