Target is facing a proposed $4.6 million class action settlement over claims that certain “Progression Team Members” at its New Jersey distribution centers weren’t paid for all compensable time worked—specifically minutes spent on pre-shift and post-shift activities such as walking to and from work areas, and other time tied to starting up or wrapping up a shift. These cases often arise in large warehouse operations where employees may pass through security, travel long distances within a facility, or complete required tasks before clocking in or after clocking out, creating small slices of time that can add up across thousands of shifts and many workers. The lawsuit (Sadler v. Target Corporation, D.N.J., No. 1:23-cv-00030-CPO-SAK) was filed to recover alleged unpaid wages and related damages under wage-and-hour laws that generally require employers to pay for time they “suffer or permit” employees to work, including certain required pre- and post-shift activities. Target denies wrongdoing, and the court has not ruled on the merits; the parties instead negotiated a settlement fund that, if approved, will cover payments to eligible workers employed since August 6, 2019, plus administration costs, attorneys’ fees (capped at one-third of the fund if approved), and a possible service award to the named plaintiff. Notably, the deal is structured as an automatic distribution—no claim form is required—using Target’s payroll records to calculate pro rata payments, with deadlines to opt out or object by February 13, 2026 and a final approval hearing scheduled for February 24, 2026. Beyond this one facility, the settlement sits in a long-running national debate about “off-the-clock” work in distribution centers and other high-throughput workplaces, where policies about timekeeping, security screenings, donning and doffing gear, and internal travel can trigger litigation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and parallel state wage laws. Similar claims have been brought across retail, logistics, and manufacturing, and the legal outcomes often turn on whether the activity is required and primarily benefits the employer, as well as how precisely time is tracked and paid. For employers, the industry lesson is that seemingly minor daily time can create significant exposure at scale, while for workers the case underscores how wage regulations and recordkeeping practices shape what counts as paid work time in modern warehouse operations.