Search form

New Damages Standard for Connecticut Wage Claims Weighs Against Employers

By David R. Golder
  • November 23, 2015

A new Connecticut standard provides for the award of double damages and attorney’s fees to employees who prevail on claims under the state’s wage and hour statutes.

An Act Concerning An Employer’s Failure to Pay Wages, Senate Bill No. 914, Public Act No. 15-86, mandates that double damages be awarded against an employer who fails to pay minimum or overtime wages due to its employee, unless the employer proves its “good faith belief” that the underpayment of wages was in compliance with the law. The Act became law on October 1, 2015.

The Act replaces and supersedes prior case law in Connecticut. See, e.g., Sansone v. Clifford, 219 Conn. 217, 229 (1991). The state Supreme Court in Sansone stated, “In 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.”

Presumption

The Act replaces the previous standard with a presumption adverse to employers. It provides that an employee who is paid less than the minimum wage or overtime wages due, and prevails in a civil action against his or her employer, shall be entitled to recover (1) costs and reasonable attorney’s fees and (2) two times the full amount of the minimum wage or overtime wages due, unless the employer establishes good faith.

Employers that establish “good faith” can defeat the Act’s double damages presumption.

Prevailing employees, however, still will be entitled to recover their costs and attorney’s fees, in addition to the full amount of wages due. In this regard, the Act modifies Connecticut law (General Statutes §§ 31-68 and 31-72) to provide for damages similar to those recoverable under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Good Faith

The Act does not define “good faith” or specify what employers must to do to satisfy this defense standard. Absent the Connecticut legislature’s guidance, courts may look to the standard governing the FLSA’s good faith defense for direction.

Courts have held the FLSA’s good faith defense requires the employer to take steps to ascertain its obligations under the law and then move to comply with them.

Employers should regularly review their policies and practices with employment counsel to ensure they address specific organizational needs effectively and comply with applicable law. Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this new law and other workplace developments.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

June 13, 2018

New Hampshire Prohibits Gender Identity Discrimination

June 13, 2018

New Hampshire became the 20th state in the country to prohibit discrimination of all forms based upon gender identity when Governor Chris Sununu signed House Bill 1319 into law on June 8, 2018. The law goes into effect on July 8, 2018. House Bill 1319 adds “gender identity” to the list of protected classes under the New Hampshire Law... Read More

June 12, 2018

Nevada Supreme Court Rejects an Interpretation of ‘Health Insurance’ that Would Nullify State Wage System

June 12, 2018

In the last of a series of decisions reached by the Nevada Supreme Court interpreting the Minimum Wage Amendment (“MWA”) to the Nevada Constitution, the Court concluded that an employer may pay the lower of the state’s two-tier minimum wage “if the employer offers health insurance at a cost to the employer of the equivalent of at least... Read More

June 8, 2018

New Jersey Closer to Bar on Jury Waivers, Arbitration Agreements, Secrecy of Harassment Settlements

June 8, 2018

The New Jersey Senate has passed a bill that would prohibit jury waivers and agreements that conceal the details of discrimination claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1, et seq. (LAD). The bill, which passed by a vote of 34-1, also would call into question the enforceability of agreements to arbitrate... Read More