Many employers take comfort in knowing that wage and hour claims are subject to relatively short statutes of limitations, in most cases two to three years. Once enough time has passed, they assume potential claims are gone for good.
But that’s not always the case.
A recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia serves as an important reminder that the statute of limitations is not always the bright-line defense employers expect.
In Agdipa v. Ertay, the court refused to dismiss wage claims, as well as other claims for fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment that were filed more than three years after the employee’s employment ended because the plaintiff plausibly alleged that the limitations period should be extended.
While the case involved particularly egregious allegations by a former live-in domestic worker who claimed that her employers failed to pay overtime and unlawfully withheld wages, the lessons apply to all employers.
What Happened in Agdipa v. Ertay?
The employee left her employment on May 5, 2021, but did not file suit until May 20, 2024, more than three years later. Ordinarily, that timing would appear fatal to claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and comparable District of Columbia wage laws.
However, the court concluded that the employee had alleged facts that, if proven, could justify allowing the claims to proceed despite being filed after the standard deadline. Those allegations included claims that the employer threatened deportation, controlled access to information, monitored communications, isolated the employee from others, and failed to provide statutorily required notice of workplace rights.
The Primary Lesson for Employers
The main takeaway for employers is that courts may be willing to extend limitations periods when an employee can plausibly argue that the employer’s conduct prevented the employee from learning about legal rights or pursuing claims.
Notably, the court emphasized that determining when an employee actually became aware of those rights is often a fact-intensive inquiry that cannot be resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
As a result, employers who believe a claim is untimely may still face costly discovery and prolonged litigation before receiving a ruling on the statute of limitations defense, and there is a real chance the ruling may not be in their favor.
Workplace Notice Requirements Matter
The decision also highlights the importance of compliance with workplace notice requirements. Significantly, the court found that allegations regarding the employers’ failure to provide or post required notices concerning employee rights could support tolling under the FLSA and the District of Columbia wage laws.
The court further distinguished between an employee merely being unaware of legal rights and situations where an employer’s actions may have actively contributed to that lack of awareness.
For employers, this underscores why wage-and-hour compliance should include not only proper pay practices but also clear communication of employee rights and adherence to all posting and notice obligations.
Statutes of Limitations Are Not Always Absolute
Although the allegations in Agdipa were unusual and remain unproven, the ruling demonstrates a broader principle that applies to every employer: statutes of limitations are not always absolute. Conduct that appears unrelated to payroll practices, such as restricting access to information, discouraging complaints, making threats, or failing to provide required notices, can create arguments for extending the period in which claims may be filed.
Employers should regularly review wage-and-hour policies, manager training, and required workplace postings to minimize the risk that a court will later conclude that the statute of limitations should be tolled.
Jim Hammerschmidt’s practice includes a range of commercial, corporate, and employment counseling and litigation in Maryland and the District of Columbia. You can reach him at 301-841-0189 or at jrhammerschmidt@lerchearly.com
