Connecticut’s Wage Law behind the times

The Massachusetts legislature recently passed a law that clarified that its wage payment statute requires the mandatory award of triple damages when and employer fails to pay earned wages.  An earlier decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had held that the triple damages provision of the statute was discretionary.

Our legislature should fall into line with the Massachusetts legislature and correct a similar ruling by our Supreme Court. 

Our Minimum Wage Act provides that an employee who successfully sues an employer for unpaid wages …

“…may recover, in a civil action, twice the full amount of such wages, with costs and such reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court,…” 

Our Supreme Court and our Appellate Court have held that these double damages and attorneys fees are discretionary, not mandatory:

“[I]n an action for wages brought pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72, awards for double damages and attorney’s fees are inappropriate in the absence of the trial court’s finding of ‘bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness.’ ” Matteson v. Great Eastern Development, Ltd., 18 Conn.App. 618, 621, 559 A.2d 1165 (1989), quoting Crowther v. Gerber Garment Technology, Inc., 8 Conn.App. 254, 265, 513 A.2d 144 (1986).” 

 Sansone v. Clifford, 219 Conn. 217, 229 (1991).

 Nowhere in the statute are the words “bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness.” 

 The effect of these holdings is that plaintiffs’ employment lawyers are dissuaded from taking small wage cases because they might not win their attorneys fees.  Of course, employees are similarly dissuaded from hiring an attorney on an hourly basis to sue for a small wage claim because they might not win reimbursement of those fees.

 Even the federal law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, provides more protection on this issue than we do.  Under that law, attorneys’ fees are awarded to a prevailing employee without a showing of bad faith. 

 Our legislature should step up to the plate and fill this hole in Connecticut law.  Our law is currently less supportive of an employee’s right to sue for unpaid wages than that of the federal government or of Massachusetts.  A new law which clarifies that double damages and attorneys’ fees are mandatory is in order.

Supreme Court Affirms Vollemans v. Town of Wallingford!

In yet another victory for employees in Connecticut, our Supreme Court has ruled that the limitations period to file a claim under CFEPA (180 days) “…commences upon actual cessation of employment, rather than notice thereof.’’  Vollemans v. Town of Wallingford.   In this case, the plaintiff was told on December 13, 2002 that his employment would end on January 21, 2003.  His complaint, which was filed on June 3, 2003 was initially held to be untimely, even though it was within 180 days of his actual termination date.  The Appellate Court reversed and the Supreme Court affirmed per curiam.

This holding departs from Federal jurisprudence on this question, specifically, the cases of Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (1980) and Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6 (1981), in which the United States Supreme Court held that the period for filing a discriminatory discharge complaint under Title VII accrues when the employer unequivocally notifies the employee of termination.

This case is yet another example of how Connecticut’s statutes and jurisprudence can be and frequently are better than similar federal laws (e.g., our minimum wage is higher, c.f., we have to prove wilfulness to get attorneys fees under our wage payment law).  In fact, Connecticut is in the minority of states that have rejected the Ricks-Chardon rule.  More on this topic in an upcoming blog.

Congratulations to Mr. Vollemans and his attorney, John-Henry Steele of Middlefield, Connecticut.

Unemployment on the Rise in Connecticut

The Hartford Courant reported on September 19 that unemployment in Connecticut rose to 6.5% for the first time since 1993.  Of course, this is not good news for employees.  More than ever, employees need to understand their rights in the work place, including their rights to unemployment compensation.  Here are a few basics:

1.    If you quit, you are not entitled to unemployment compensation unless you quit for sufficient cause attributable to your employer.
2.    If you are terminated, you are entitled to unemployment compensation unless you committed willful misconduct.
3.    If you lose at your first hearing, you can appeal to the Referee and that person will review the case from the beginning and will not give any deference to the Administrator’s decision.
4.    If you received severance pay and had to sign a release of claims to get it, you can start collecting right away and need not wait until your severance pay is spent.

The Connecticut Department of Labor website provides more detailed information on this topic.