Tractor Supply Co. Wage and Hour Class Action Sees $750K Settlement
/
Rebecca Day filed a class action against Tractor Supply alleging the company failed to pay certain New York workers on a weekly basis in violation of New York labor law. While the case did not end with a merits ruling, the defendant agreed to a $750,000 settlement to resolve the dispute.
Case: Day v. Tractor Supply Co.
Court: New York State Supreme Court for Nassau County
Case No. 6128331/2023
Who Is the Named Plaintiff in the Class Action?
Rebecca Day is the named plaintiff in the lawsuit and served as the proposed representative for other workers with similar claims. According to the court-approved notice, she alleged that Tractor Supply failed to pay her and other non-exempt, hourly-paid manual workers on a weekly basis. While Day initiated the action and pursued wage-and-hour claims against Tractor Supply, she also sought relief on behalf of a broader class of employees who allegedly experienced the same pay schedule.
Who Is the Defendant in the Case?
Tractor Supply Company, the defendant, is a large retail business that sells products tied to rural living, including farm, pet, tool, garden, and outdoor merchandise, with a workforce of more than 52,000 team members. Tractor Supply denied the allegations made in Day’s complaint and maintained that its non-exempt hourly employees were lawfully compensated and paid all wages in a timely manner. Despite denying the allegations, the company agreed to settle the lawsuit rather than continue litigation.
The Plaintiff’s Allegations: Day v. Tractor Supply Co.
According to the lawsuit, Tractor Supply allegedly paid certain hourly manual workers in New York on a biweekly schedule when, under New York law, qualifying manual workers were supposed to be paid weekly. The settlement notice states that the case covered non-exempt, hourly-paid workers employed in New York stores between June 24, 2016, and February 24, 2019, who did not continue working for the company beyond February 24, 2019. Tractor Supply denied wrongdoing, and the court did not rule on the merits before the parties reached a settlement.
What Is a Non-Exempt Employee? A non-exempt employee is a worker who is generally entitled to wage and hour protections such as minimum wage and overtime pay.
What Is a Manual Worker? In this case, the term manual worker refers to employees whose job duties were sufficiently physical or hands-on that New York’s weekly pay rule allegedly applied to them.
What Is the Main Question in the Case?
At the center of the case was whether Tractor Supply’s hourly workers in New York qualified as “manual workers” under state labor law. If they did, the next question was whether paying them biweekly rather than weekly violated the statute governing the frequency of pay. The dispute also raised the practical issue of what damages or statutory relief might be available when workers are paid in full but not on the schedule required by law. More broadly, the case reflects a recurring wage-and-hour question employers face: whether their payroll practices match the legal rules that apply to a specific category of non-exempt employees.
FAQ: Day v. Tractor Supply Co.
Q: What Is the Case Name and Number?
A: The case is Rebecca Day v. Tractor Supply Co., Case No. 6128331/2023, filed in New York State Supreme Court for Nassau County.
Q: Did the Court Find That Tractor Supply Violated the Law?
A: No. The case was resolved through settlement, and the court did not issue a final ruling that Tractor Supply violated the law. Tractor Supply denied the allegations and agreed to settle the dispute rather than continue litigating it.
Q: How Much Was the Tractor Supply Class Action Settlement?
A: The settlement was valued at up to $750,000. That amount was intended to cover payments to eligible class members, attorneys’ fees and costs, administration expenses, and a service award for the named plaintiff.
Q: Who Was Included in the Settlement Class?
A: The settlement covered certain non-exempt, hourly-paid Tractor Supply employees who worked in New York during the relevant class period and who were allegedly paid on a biweekly schedule instead of weekly. The class definition in the settlement materials was tied to employees working in New York stores during the dates identified in the notice.
Q: Why Does This Case Matter in Wage and Hour Law?
A: This case shows that wage and hour disputes are not always about whether workers were paid at all. Sometimes, the legal issue is whether employees were paid in accordance with the timing and method required by law. That kind of payroll practice can affect a large group of workers at once and lead to class action litigation.
Q: Why Does a New York Pay-Frequency Case Matter to California Workers?
A: Even though this case arose under New York law, it reflects a broader employment law principle that also matters in California: employers must follow the wage rules that apply to their workforce with precision. Cases involving payroll timing, unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest periods, and wage statement compliance all turn on that same core idea.
If you have questions about wage and hour violations, or if your employer’s business practices regularly mean you aren’t paid for all the hours you work, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.
