Part of our New Mexico cases → · Part of our oilfield overtime cases →
In June 2020, in this Peak Pressure Control overtime lawsuit, a federal court certified a Rule 23 class of pressure-control operators under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA). To our knowledge, it was the first class certified under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act in federal court. In Rodriguez v. Peak Pressure Control, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-00576-JCH-JFR (D.N.M.), the court certified a class of approximately 150 Pressure Control Operators denied overtime pay while working grueling schedules in New Mexico's oilfields.
On June 4, 2020, Senior Judge Judith C. Herrera issued two rulings. First, the court granted Rule 23(b)(3) class certification under the NMMWA. Judge Herrera found that Peak Pressure Control's uniform exemption policy was "probative of the existence of common answers to common questions." The court appointed Jack Siegel, among other counsel, as class counsel.
Second, and equally significant, the court granted partial summary judgment striking down the defendants' administrative exemption defense under the NMMWA. Judge Herrera applied the administrative-production dichotomy from Dewan v. M-I, L.L.C. (5th Cir. 2017) and found that PCOs' primary duties were undisputedly manual — operating hand pumps and knobs to maintain wellbore pressure, rigging up and down equipment, and monitoring wellheads in the field. The court held that "a reasonable trier of fact could not conclude that PCOs were responsible for running the business affairs" of the defendants. The court also rejected the defendants' arguments that PCOs performed "quality control," "marketing," or "safety and health" administrative functions — finding these were merely incidents of producing the services the company sells.
In a separate ruling within the same opinion, the court confirmed that the NMMWA applies to out-of-state employers for work performed in New Mexico — an important holding for oilfield workers employed by Texas-based companies operating in New Mexico's Permian Basin.
This ruling established that the NMMWA's overtime protections can be enforced through a federal class action. It demonstrated that New Mexico state overtime laws provide protections beyond the FLSA, and that workers can pursue claims under both federal and state laws simultaneously. For the oilfield industry, this case put employers on notice: uniform policies that misclassify field workers as exempt from overtime will face class-wide scrutiny.
Approximately 150 PCOs worked 12-hour days, totaling 84 or more hours per week, for Peak Pressure Control and Nine Energy Services in New Mexico's oilfields. Despite these punishing schedules, their employer paid them on a salary or salary-plus-bonus basis with no overtime. The defendants claimed the executive and administrative exemptions applied.
The court rejected the administrative exemption defense at summary judgment because the PCOs spent their days performing physically demanding, manual labor — operating pressure control equipment, monitoring wellheads, and working in the field. Their primary duties had nothing to do with management or office-level decision-making.
The firm also won conditional certification and defeated decertification in the related Snively v. Peak Pressure Control litigation in Texas.
If you worked in New Mexico's oilfields and were paid a salary without overtime — or if you believe your employer misclassified you as exempt — you may have a claim under the NMMWA, the FLSA, or both. The NMMWA permits Rule 23 class actions (opt-out), meaning all affected workers are automatically included unless they choose to exclude themselves — a significant advantage over FLSA collective actions, which require workers to affirmatively opt in.
The New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA) is a state overtime law that requires employers to pay overtime for hours worked over 40 per week. Unlike the FLSA, the NMMWA can be enforced through a Rule 23 class action in federal court, which automatically includes all affected workers unless they opt out.
To our knowledge, it was the first class certified under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act in federal court. This established a new legal pathway for New Mexico workers to challenge employer pay practices through a federal class action under state law.
Oilfield workers who perform primarily physical, manual labor in the field typically do not qualify for the administrative or executive exemptions. These exemptions are designed for office and management workers, not field hands operating equipment and working wellheads.
In a class action (Rule 23), all affected workers are automatically included unless they opt out. In a collective action (FLSA), workers must affirmatively opt in by filing a consent form. Class actions typically result in larger groups and greater employer accountability.
After class certification, notice is sent to all class members. The case then proceeds through discovery, potential summary judgment motions, and trial. Because all class members are automatically included, the scope of potential liability is typically larger than in a collective action.
Yes. Workers in New Mexico can pursue claims under both the FLSA and the NMMWA simultaneously. Each statute may provide different protections, exemption standards, and damages calculations. Pursuing both maximizes the worker's potential recovery.
If you did this kind of work for another employer and weren't paid overtime for hours over 40, tell us your job title, your employer and the state you worked in. We'll tell you plainly whether we think you have a case. Federal law makes it illegal to retaliate against you for asking.
Siegel Law Group PLLC concentrates in unpaid overtime cases under the FLSA and state wage laws. The firm has filed more than 100 federal overtime cases, obtained 50+ class and collective certifications in 20 federal judicial districts across 15 states, and recovered more than $100 million for workers. It has never represented an employer in a wage case. Free consultation. Contingency fee: we advance case costs, and they are repaid from any recovery. No recovery, no fee and no costs. Phone: (214) 790-4454 | Email: [email protected]
These are results in other people's cases. Every case depends on its own facts and law. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website contains attorney advertising.
Attorney responsible: Jack L. Siegel, Siegel Law Group PLLC, Dallas, Texas.
Automated chat. Not legal advice, not a substitute for an attorney, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Send your job title and how you are paid — no documents, no detailed case facts. An inquiry does not by itself stop the firm from representing someone else in a related matter.
Attorney advertising. Jack L. Siegel of Siegel Law Group PLLC, Dallas, Texas, is responsible for this content.
Before you start
We opened this box, not you. The notice above applies. Start when you are ready, or close it and nothing happens.
Search by company or industry to see overtime case activity.
This is a list of cases this firm filed. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
"Certified" means a judge agreed the case could go forward for a group of workers at once, not just the one person who filed it. It is a step in the case, not the end of it.
Attorney advertising. Case information shown is taken from public court filings and court-approved settlements in cases this firm brought. Every case turns on its own facts and on the law of the court where it is heard. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome, and a certification or ruling in one case does not guarantee the same result in another. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it or sending a message does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Jack L. Siegel of Siegel Law Group PLLC, Dallas, Texas, is responsible for the content of this page. He appears in federal courts in other states by admission to those courts or by leave of court, and is not licensed in every state shown in this list.
