Standing for Workers' Rights: Expanding Access to Federal Courts for Workers Bringing Wage Theft Suits Against Employers Post-TransUnion

Abstract

Wage theft affects millions of workers in the United States, particularly low-wage and hourly workers. In response to this crisis, many states have enacted wage theft prevention laws requiring employers to provide employees with written documentation of wage information. Employers who fail to provide sufficient notice must pay statutory damages. However, plaintiff-employees seeking enforcement of these provisions against their private employers in federal court often struggle to establish standing to sue. The Supreme Court's 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez has narrowed the standing doctrine by holding that a statutory violation is insufficient to establish standing without further demonstration that the violation resulted in concrete harm to the plaintiff. After TransUnion, federal courts have remained divided on when an employer's violation of a wage documentation or notice statute constitutes a concrete injury to the plaintiff for standing purposes. This Note explores the Second and Ninth Circuits' narrowed approaches to standing in wage documentation violation claims following TransUnion, rendering these provisions toothless and virtually unenforceable. This Note argues that an overly narrow interpretation of standing in wage theft suits unfairly prevents workers from using federal courts to hold their employers accountable and suggests that federal courts must reevaluate the standing doctrine in light of its roots and original purpose.