Case Explained: Mighell v. HPG Pizza I, et al.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-11 Docket: 1:23-CV-02533-SKC-MEH) The tenth-circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) wage and hour lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient Article III standing. The appellate court held that the district court erred by evaluating the merits of the plaintiff’s legal theory—specifically whether unreimbursed vehicle expenses could be used to calculate minimum wage violations under federal law—rather than assuming the legal validity of those claims at the standing stage. Under Tenth Circuit precedent, a plaintiff establishes an injury in fact for standing purposes if their alleged facts, assuming they are legally valid, demonstrate that they suffered actual harm. The district court had incorrectly concluded the plaintiff lacked standing by applying the Colorado tip credit to the wage calculation, thereby determining the plaintiff was not injured; however, the appellate court ruled that such a merits-based determination is improper when assessing jurisdiction. The practical consequence is that the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The lower court must now conduct a proper analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to determine if the plaintiff’s complaint adequately states a claim upon which relief can be granted, addressing whether the unreimbursed expenses and wage calculations support a valid FLSA violation without conflating that inquiry with the standing requirement. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.