A union deal covers his pay - but that wasn't enough to send his wage case to federal court
A union contract does not shield a grocery chain from a worker's state overtime claim, a Washington federal court ruled.
On August 7, 2026, the US District Court for the District of Columbia denied Giant of Maryland's request to throw out an overtime claim brought by a former store clerk. The ruling did not decide whether the worker was underpaid. It decided only that his claim could move forward.
The clerk stocked shelves at a Giant grocery store from March 2024 through February 2025. He sued the company under two D.C. wage laws. He alleged Giant did not pay him for all the hours he worked, "consistently recording less time" than he spent on the job. He also alleged the company failed to pay him 1.5 times his regular rate for overtime.
Giant did not fight those allegations at this stage. Instead it challenged the overtime count on a technical ground. The company argued the claim was "preempted" - blocked - by a federal law, the Labor Management Relations Act. Its reasoning: the clerk belonged to a union, his pay was set by a collective bargaining agreement, and so any dispute over his "regular rate" was really a federal contract question.
The court disagreed. The federal law reaches only claims that depend on interpreting a union contract - not every claim that happens to touch one. D.C.'s overtime rule, which requires "not less than 1 1/2 times the regular rate" for hours worked...
Pauline Hanson and Anthony Albanese traded insults during a live televised debate. Our verdict False. The quotes attributed to the politicians have been fabricated by a foreign-run disinformation ...