Opinion
No. HHD-CV-08-4036600S
March 27, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is an action for nonpayment of wages, brought on behalf of employees, by the Connecticut department of labor based on the alleged failure to pay wages by defendant Northeast Distribution, Inc. The defendant moves to strike the complaint alleging the plaintiff failed to explicitly state that the plaintiff failed to pay wages in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §§ 31-71a— 31-71i inclusive.
Count two against N.E. Distribution President Paul Tonon individually was dropped at the short calendar on January 5, 2009.
The plaintiff alleges that Northeast Distribution, Inc. hired two sales representatives, Dan Spigner and Michael J. Gorham. Both Spigner and Gorham filed complaints with the labor department, Wage and Workplace Standards Division, alleging that Northeast Distribution failed to pay wages. After investigating both complaints, the labor department determined that Northeast Distribution failed to pay wages in the total amount of $23,505.15. The plaintiff labor department made demand upon the defendant, but the defendant failed to tender payment. The plaintiff further alleges that such failure to pay outstanding wages constitutes conduct that is intentional, egregious, arbitrary, unreasonable and in bad faith. In this action, the plaintiff seeks to collect double damages, i.e., $23,505.15 X 2 = $47,010.30 together with reasonable attorneys fees, costs and interest from the date the payments should have been received from the defendants.
The court must construe the complaint in "the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency." (Citations omitted.) Bohan v. Last, 236 Conn. 670, 674, 674 A.2d 839 (1996); also, what is necessarily implied in an allegation need not be expressly alleged. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ferryman v. Groton, 212 Conn. 138, 146, 561 A.2d 432 (1984).
In its supporting memorandum, the defendants argue that the plaintiff fails to allege an essential element of the plaintiff's claim; specifically, that the employer failed to pay the employees wages. The defendants contend that, although the plaintiff alleges that the defendant received an unfavorable decision in the department of labor investigation, that decision does not by itself qualify as an allegation that the defendants failed to pay wages pursuant to § 31-71b. General Statutes § 31-72 provides in relevant part: "When any employer fails to pay an employee wages in accordance with the provisions of 31-71a to 31-71i, inclusive . . . such employee or labor organization may recover, in a civil action, twice the full amount of such wages, with costs and such reasonable attorneys fees as may be allowed by the court, and any agreement between him and his employer for payment of wages other than as specified in said sections shall be no defense to such action." Section 31-72 provides remedial protection for the integrity of the wage provisions in those cases in which the employer-employee wage agreement is violated. Shortt v. New Milford Police Dept., 212 Conn. 294, 9, 562 A.2d 7 (1989). See Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 272, 828 A.2d 64 (2003) (previously acknowledging the punitive and remedial purposes of § 31-72); Butler v. Hartford Technical Institute, Inc., 243 Conn. 454, 463, 704 A.2d 222 (1997) (concluding that broader interpretation of term "employer" under § 31-72 "effectuates the statutory policies of compensating employees and deterring employers from failing to pay wages"). (Citation omitted.)
The plaintiff maintains that the complaint alleges facts sufficient for the defendants to be able to intelligently respond, which they did, evidenced by their succinct statement of the issues in their motion to strike. The plaintiff alleges in paragraph six and eight of the first count (incorporated by reference in the second count) that, "The Labor Department conducted an investigation and it was determined that the, [d]efendant failed to pay Dan Spignor wages in the amount of $20,213.43, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71b" (count one, p. 6); and "The Labor Department conducted an investigation and it was determined that the Defendant failed to pay Michael J. Gorham wages in the amount of $3,291.72, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71b" (count one, p. 8). Additionally, the plaintiff states that, "[p]rior to the institution of this action, the [p]laintiff made demand upon the [d]efendant but to date, it has failed, neglected and refused to tender payment." (count one, p. 10.) Finally, the plaintiff alleges that, [t]he continued failure of the [d]efendant to pay said wages constitutes conduct which is intentional, egregious, arbitrary, unreasonable and in bad faith (count one, p. 11; count two, p. 29).
The court agrees with the plaintiff that the complaint alleges facts sufficient, when taken in the light most favorable to sustain its legal sufficiency, to withstand this motion to strike.
The court finds count one sufficiently alleges facts to withstand the motion to strike.
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to strike is DENIED.