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 material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 13, 2019

California Supreme Court Rejects Claim for Unpaid Wages under PAGA

September 13, 2019

Putting an end to employees’ backdoor attempts to recover unpaid wages in Private Attorneys General Act-only actions under California Labor Code Section 558, the California Supreme Court has ruled against allowing such claims. ZB, N.A., et al. v. Superior Court, No. S246711 (Sept. 12, 2019). This is surprising, as the Court provided... Read More

September 13, 2019

California Worker Misclassification Bill Closer to Enactment

September 13, 2019

The California Assembly has passed a bill that would require workers to be classified as employees if the employer exerts control over how the workers perform their tasks or if their work is part of the employer’s regular business. Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) passed by a vote of 61-16 in the Assembly. Governor Gavin Newsom has stated his... Read More

September 9, 2019

Non-Agricultural Employers May Use Workweek Averaging to Satisfy State Minimum Wage Obligations in Washington

September 9, 2019

The Washington Supreme Court has confirmed that non-agricultural employers may use a workweek averaging methodology to satisfy the Washington Minimum Wage Act. Sampson et al. v. Knight Transportation Inc. et al., No. 96264-2 (Sept. 5, 2019). In other words, non-agricultural employers can satisfy their state minimum wage... Read More