Hard to believe they wouldn't pay already earned wages. That's pretty foundational to payroll law and the mere concept of doing that (at least, if your company

Hard to believe they wouldn't pay already earned wages. That's pretty foundational to payroll law and the mere concept of doing that (at least, if your company is not already essentially dead) should cause several heads in HR and legal to explode. It's hard to say without reading the actual filing, which I'm not going to bother with, but I think they don't mean actual back pay, but rather the notification-plus-60-days-worth of pay that should be due (if it is a layoff). Based on: "“Because defendants failed to pay plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees their wages…defendants failed to pay those employees timely after each employee’s separation of employment,” the complaint states." I would think that makes it part of the general "it's actually a layoff but you didn't treat it like one" theory of the suit, which is arguable, rather than not actually paying accrued wages, which is not.