Key Points

• Resident Assistant wage and hour lawsuits filed against New Jersey universities in spring 2026
• In-kind benefits (free housing, meal plans) may be deemed insufficient to satisfy minimum wage obligations
• Overtime liability for RAs may arise during training, move-in and peak duty periods

A wave of lawsuits filed in April and May 2026 against numerous New Jersey universities should put higher education institutions throughout the country on notice. These class and collective action complaints — filed by a well-resourced plaintiffs' firm — challenge the longstanding practice of compensating Resident Assistants (RAs) solely with in-kind benefits (free housing and a meal plan) rather than paying them wages.

The suits allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), state wage and hour laws, and state wage payment laws, and are brought on behalf of a proposed class and collective of all current and former Resident Assistants spanning a period of up to six years.

What Is Being Alleged?

At the heart of the claims is the allegation that RAs are "employees" entitled to minimum wage and overtime under both federal and state law — not merely students receiving a benefit. The complaints rely upon the Third Circuit's economic realities test, as articulated in Johnson v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 108 F.4th 163 (3d Cir. 2024), which instructs courts to consider whether an individual performs services for another party, primarily for that party's benefit, under that party's control, in return for express or implied compensation or in-kind benefits.

These lawsuits seem to be capitalizing on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright, which eliminated the deference courts generally accord to the regulations and statutory interpretations of federal agencies. Here, these plaintiffs' firms are effectively asking the courts to disregard a Department of Labor interpretation set forth in U.S. DOL Fact Sheet #17S (August 2024), which explains that student residential assistants enrolled in a bona fide educational program — who receive reduced room and board charges or tuition credits — are generally not considered employees under the FLSA.

The complaints allege that RAs perform supervisory, security, administrative, community-building, and conflict mediation duties — relieving institutions of the need to hire other staff — under the institution's direction and control, and that these duties are not part of the academic curriculum. They further allege that RAs regularly worked between 24 and 28 hours per week, with some weeks exceeding 40 or even 50 hours during peak periods, without receiving minimum wage or overtime pay.

Critically, the complaints characterize the universities' conduct as "willful," pointing to the fact that some institutions pay RAs hourly wages for substantially similar work performed during summer months — arguing that the universities therefore knew (or should have known) that wages were required during the academic year as well.

Why This Matters Beyond New Jersey

The involvement of a nationally recognized plaintiffs' firm signals that this may become a sustained litigation trend targeting higher education broadly.

The legal theories in these cases have broad applicability. Any institution that compensates RAs — or other student workers — primarily through in-kind benefits may want to consider its exposure in several areas:

• Employee classification under the economic realities test. The central legal question is whether RAs are "employees" under the FLSA and applicable state law. Institutions that rely upon RAs for functions that would otherwise require paid staff may face heightened scrutiny.
• In-kind compensation is not necessarily a safe harbor. The complaints allege that free housing, meal plans, and tuition credits do not satisfy minimum wage obligations for all hours worked.
• Overtime exposure during peak periods. Training, orientation, move-in/move-out, and extended on-duty shifts may push total hours above 40 per week even where routine weekly hours are lower.
• Class and collective action exposure. The FLSA permits collective actions with a three-year lookback for willful violations, and some state laws allow up to six years. Aggregate back pay, liquidated damages (up to 300% of unpaid wages under some state statutes), and attorneys' fees could be substantial.
• Willfulness and enhanced damages. Evidence such as paying the same workers hourly for similar duties during different periods, maintaining employment-like structures, or failing to seek legal counsel on classification may support willfulness findings.
• Jury sympathy and reputational risk. Juries may be sympathetic to student workers alleging around-the-clock schedules without wages while institutions collected substantial housing revenue.

Practical Considerations for Institutions

In light of these developments, institutions with Resident Assistant or similar student-worker programs may wish to evaluate the structure of those programs, including the degree of institutional control over scheduling and duties, whether the work primarily benefits the institution, and how compensation practices compare across different periods of the year.

Institutions may also find it useful to assess hours worked during peak periods, review how Resident Assistant positions are characterized in job descriptions and work agreements, and consider whether program modifications could reduce exposure while preserving educational value.

For more information, contact Colin D. Dougherty at cdougherty@foxrothschild.com or 610.397.3908, Eileen Oakes Muskett at emuskett@foxrothschild.com or 609.572.2355, or Kirsten B. White at kbwhite@foxrothschild.com or 617.848.4030.

This information is intended to inform firm clients and friends about legal developments, including the decisions of courts and administrative bodies. Nothing in this alert should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should not act upon the information contained in this alert without seeking the advice of legal counsel. Views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily this law firm or its clients. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.