JUAN SERRANO AND EDILBERTO VIVAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED WHO WERE EMPLOYED BY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CORP., PIPELINE EQUIPMENT CO., INC., AND OTHER RELATED COMPANIES, WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS/CROSS-RESPONDENTS, v. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CORP. AND ALL SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, JOINT VENTURERS AND OTHER RELATED ENTITIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CONCEPTS, INC., PIPELINE EQUIPMENT CO., INC., AND ALL SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, JOINT VENTURERS AND OTHER RELATED ENTITIES, RICARDO GOMES, JOSE GOMES AND SANDRA GOMES, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS/CROSS-APPELLANTS., 407 N.J. Super. 253

Summary

Plaintiffs had been employed by defendants on various construction projects in New Jersey. Plaintiffs contended that they were not paid for all of the time that they actually worked, were paid regular wages for overtime hours, and were paid at hourly rates below the mandatory prevailing wage levels for public works projects. They sought compensation allegedly due under FLSA and PWA for work already performed, but no prospective relief. The named plaintiffs were immigrants from Ecuador, and most or all of the other alleged class members were from Central or South America. During initial depositions, defense counsel attempted to probe into plaintiffs' immigration status and other related matters, contending that such inquiries were germane to plaintiffs' credibility. Plaintiffs contended that the inquiries were improper and designed to intimidate them and the potential class members. The trial court listed 20 questions plaintiffs could be asked. The appellate court held that they could ...