Do Target Workers in New York Have to Be Paid for Pre- and Post-Shift Walking Time?

A recent federal court decision addresses whether New York warehouse workers must be paid for time spent walking inside an employer’s facility before clocking in and after clocking out. In Kratzert et al. v. Target Corporation, No. 1:25-cv-01171 (AMN/DJS), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York held that the walking time alleged by the employees was not compensable under the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

What Did the Target Workers Allege?

The plaintiffs were current and former Target warehouse employees at facilities in Wilton and Amsterdam, New York. According to the court’s September 16, 2026 Memorandum-Decision and Order, the employees alleged that they were not paid for time spent walking between security checkpoints at the warehouse entrances and their assigned work areas before clocking in and after clocking out. The alleged walking time ranged from three or four minutes in each direction for certain shifts to ten or fifteen minutes in each direction per shift.

What Did the Court Decide?

U.S. District Judge Anne M. Nardacci granted Target’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded that New York’s Minimum Wage Order for Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations incorporates the Portal-to-Portal Act’s limitations on compensable time.

Applying those limitations, the court held that New York law did not require Target to compensate the plaintiffs for the walking time alleged in the case. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, as well as their claims for promised wages and noncompliant wage statements. The amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

What Does the Decision Mean for New York Workers?

The court also noted that it was unaware of controlling authority from the New York Court of Appeals, or any other New York state court, addressing the precise issue. As a federal district court interpreting New York law, the court was required to predict how New York’s highest court would resolve the issue.

The ruling does not mean that every activity performed before clocking in or after clocking out is unpaid. The court distinguished the Target employees’ alleged walking time from circumstances in which employees have already begun compensable work. For example, the court discussed New York Department of Labor guidance involving employees who were required to report to management at a specified time, receive their work assignments, and then proceed to their work locations. The court explained that such circumstances involve compensable time under federal law. By contrast, the Target employees were not yet clocked in during the walking time at issue and did not allege that they were assigned or expected to be ready to perform work during that time.

Whether other pre-shift or post-shift activities are compensable can, therefore, depend on what employees are required to do and when their compensable work activities begin and end.

New York Workers: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

If you work in New York and are required to perform work before clocking in, after clocking out, or during other unpaid time, you are encouraged to send us a message to learn more about your potential legal rights.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
(215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and ERISA and retirement plan litigation. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Lyft Agrees to Proposed $272.5 Million Settlement of California Driver Misclassification Claims

Lyft, Inc. has agreed to a proposed $272.5 million Lyft settlement resolving coordinated California actions alleging that Lyft misclassified drivers using its platform as independent contractors rather than employees. The settlement covers alleged unlawful conduct before Proposition 22 took effect on December 16, 2020.

According to the September 30, 2026 Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment, Proposed Stipulated Final Judgment, and Settlement Agreement Exhibit, the actions were brought by the People of the State of California, the California Labor Commissioner, and Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 plaintiffs Brandon Olson and Million Seifu. The matters are coordinated in Uber Technologies Wage and Hour Cases, Case No. CJC-21-005179, JCCP No. 5179, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.

What Do the California Actions Allege?

The proposed stipulated judgment states that the four complaints each allege that Lyft “misclassified drivers using the Lyft platform as independent contractors”, thereby allegedly denying them benefits and protections afforded to employees under California law.

The settlement agreement similarly states that the actions generally allege that Lyft misclassified drivers instead of providing them with the “pay and benefits to which they were entitled as employees under California law.”

Which Lyft Drivers Are Covered?

The settlement defines “Covered Drivers” as drivers who provided at least one ride that started or ended in California using the Lyft platform from April 5, 2016 through December 15, 2020.

The agreement separately defines “Eligible Drivers” as Covered Drivers who meet a minimum threshold of driving hours in California during the covered period, based on time spent driving to pick up and waiting for riders after accepting a trip (“P2 Time”) and time spent transporting riders (“P3 Time”).

The People and the California Labor Commissioner will determine the minimum-hours threshold after Lyft provides the required driver data. Certain Covered Drivers who had pending wage claims against Lyft before the California Labor Commissioner when the Labor Commissioner’s action was filed (“Berman Claimants”) also qualify as Eligible Drivers.

What Does the Proposed $272.5 Million Settlement Provide?

The settlement agreement provides that Lyft will pay $272.5 million, plus specified interest, into a settlement fund. The fund is to be used for eligible driver awards, civil penalties, PAGA attorneys’ fees, approved service awards, and other settlement-related costs.

After specified allocations, the remainder is designated as the Driver Compensation Fund. Under the proposed plan of allocation, payments to Eligible Drivers are generally based on P2 and P3 miles driven during the relevant period, with separate allocation provisions for Berman Claimants.

Lyft Denies Liability

The proposed stipulated judgment states that “LYFT has denied all such allegations” and that the court has made “no determination of liability” regarding the plaintiffs’ allegations.

The settlement agreement also states that the parties agreed to settle the claims without admissions by Lyft of wrongdoing, misconduct, illegal acts, or the facts alleged in the coordinated proceedings.

California Workers with Wage and Classification Questions

Worker classification can affect rights involving wages, expense reimbursement, and other protections under applicable law. Workers with questions about whether they have been properly classified or paid may wish to speak with an employment attorney about their individual circumstances.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
(215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and ERISA and retirement plan litigation. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Retirement Plan Fees: Are Your Recordkeeping Fees Too High?

Employees and participants in 401(k) and other employer-sponsored defined-contribution retirement plans may lose retirement savings when their plans pay unreasonable administrative or recordkeeping fees. Under ERISA, plan fiduciaries must act prudently and in the interests of plan participants when managing plan expenses.

Why Retirement Plan Recordkeeping Fees Matter

Recordkeeping fees pay for services used to administer a retirement plan, such as maintaining participant accounts and records. Even relatively small differences in per-participant fees can become significant when a plan has thousands of participants. The central issue is not simply whether a fee appears high, but whether plan fiduciaries used a prudent process to monitor the fees and determine whether they were reasonable for the services provided.

Trader Joe’s Decision: A Recent Example

A September 28, 2026 federal court decision involving the Trader Joe’s Company Retirement Plan provides a recent example of the importance of monitoring retirement plan recordkeeping fees. Following a bench trial, U.S. District Judge William G. Young found in favor of the plan participants on their claims concerning recordkeeping fees, while ruling in favor of Trader Joe’s on the other claims addressed in the decision.

The court found that the plan’s recordkeeping fee was $48 per participant in 2019, later reduced to $40 effective April 1, 2021, and then to $38 effective July 1, 2024. The court also found there was no formal request for proposal (RFP), request for information (RFI), or other evidence of active competitive testing of the market for an optimal recordkeeping fee.

Addressing the fiduciary process, the court stated: “The Committee in this case has provided no robust evidence indicating that it engaged in a process compliant with its fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, to ensure that the recordkeeping fees were adequately monitored and controlled.”

The court concluded that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties concerning recordkeeping fees and caused losses to plan participants. It calculated $715,264 in overpaid recordkeeping fees and awarded $471,957 in prejudgment interest, for a total surcharge of $1,187,221.

Cognizant 401(k) Plan Participants Seek Preliminary Approval of $2.8 Million ERISA Settlement

In Milano et al. v. Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-17793 (D.N.J.), participants in the Cognizant Technology Solutions 401(k) Savings Plan (the “Plan”) have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to preliminarily approve a $2.8 million class action settlement.

According to the plaintiffs’ September 29, 2026 memorandum in support of preliminary approval, the operative complaint alleges breaches of the fiduciary duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

The plaintiffs allege that the Plan fiduciaries: 1) failed to objectively and adequately review the Plan’s investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent in terms of cost and/or performance; 2) maintained certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories; and 3) failed to control the Plan’s recordkeeping and administrative costs.

The plaintiffs further state that one of their three general theories of liability is that the defendants’ allegedly imprudent fee-monitoring process resulted in excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees for the Plan and its participants.

The proposed settlement provides for a $2.8 million Gross Settlement Amount. The proposed Settlement Class generally includes participants and beneficiaries of the Plan from December 2, 2014 through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order. The defendants deny all claims and deny that they engaged in any wrongful conduct.

What Should Retirement Plan Participants Know?

The Trader Joe’s decision and the allegations in the Cognizant litigation illustrate the importance of the fiduciary process used to monitor retirement plan recordkeeping and administrative expenses. A recordkeeping fee should not be evaluated based solely on its dollar amount. Relevant considerations may include the services provided to the plan, whether fiduciaries compared fees and services with available market information, whether they sought competitive information or bids, and whether they negotiated or otherwise monitored the fees paid by the plan.

Retirement plan participants who are concerned about recordkeeping or administrative expenses may want to review their plan disclosures and other available information concerning the fees charged to their accounts and the services provided to the plan.

Retirement Plan Participants with Questions: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

If you participate or participated in an employer-sponsored 401(k) or other defined-contribution plan and are concerned that excessive administrative or recordkeeping fees reduced your retirement savings, you are encouraged to send us a message to learn more about your potential legal rights.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
(215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and ERISA and retirement plan litigation. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]