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

February 20, 2018

Georgia Supreme Court Clarifies Insurance Company is Not ‘Financial Institution’ in Garnishment Law

February 20, 2018

An insurance company named as a garnishee in a garnishment action is not a “financial institution” under Georgia’s garnishment statute when the garnishment is seeking earnings owed to its current or former employees. May 2016 Amendment Apparently responding to a federal judge’s 2015 ruling that portions of Georgia’s post-judgment... Read More

February 20, 2018

Ban-the-Box Laws in Spokane, Washington, and Kansas City, Missouri

February 20, 2018

State and local jurisdictions have continued to consider and enact legislation restricting employers from inquiring about a job applicant’s criminal background during the initial stages of the application process. Two of the latest enactments are in Spokane, Washington, and Kansas City, Missouri. Some ban-the-box ordinances are... Read More

February 12, 2018

EEOC: Retaliation Tops Discrimination Charges Filed in Fiscal Year 2017

February 12, 2018

Retaliation was the most common workplace discrimination charge received by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in fiscal year (FY) 2017, according to the agency. (The fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.) Retaliation has been at the top since FY 2010. A total of 84,254 charges were filed with the agency... Read More