Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting defendants’ motion to strike a putative class action alleging violations of Connecticut minimum wage regulations concerning tip credits, recordkeeping, and nonservice duties. Relying on its companion decision in Farias v. Rodriguez, the court held that the applicable statutes did not provide a private cause of action for the alleged recordkeeping violations, that Public Act 22-134 governed claims filed after September 24, 2022, and that its application did not violate due process.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether General Statutes § 31-68 provides a private cause of action for violations of the recordkeeping requirements in § 31-62-E3 of the 2015 wage regulations.
- Whether Public Act 22-134 and General Statutes § 31-60 (d) (4) applied to the plaintiff's claims filed after September 24, 2022, requiring adjudication solely under § 31-60-2 of the current regulations.
- Whether applying Public Act 22-134 and § 31-60 (d) (4) to the plaintiff's claims violated due process by taking away a vested substantive cause of action.
- Whether the plaintiff's tolling and relation-back arguments required a different result.
Holdings
- General Statutes § 31-68 does not provide a private cause of action for a recordkeeping violation under § 31-62-E3 (b) and (c) of the 2015 wage regulations.
- General Statutes § 31-60 (d) (4) requires claims filed after September 24, 2022, including claims concerning gratuities and old § 31-62-E3, to be adjudicated solely under § 31-60-2 of the regulations effective September 24, 2020, and amendments thereto.
- Applying Public Act 22-134 and § 31-60 (d) (4) to the plaintiff's claims did not violate due process.
- The plaintiff's tolling and relation-back arguments did not require consideration because, even if those arguments were accepted, § 31-60 (d) (4) independently required adjudication under § 31-60-2 and the plaintiff alleged only violations of old E3 and old E4.
Key quotations
“The issues presented in this appeal are identical to those presented in Farias.”
“We therefore adopt the reasoning and conclusions of that decision herein.”
“Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly granted the defendants’ motion to strike.”
Factual background
The plaintiff worked as a server and bartender at a Maggie McFly's restaurant from approximately October 2018 through July 2019. She alleged that the defendants took a tip credit and paid servers and bartenders less than the full minimum wage while requiring them to perform nonservice tasks such as setup, cleaning, stocking, and other restaurant-wide duties. She alleged that the defendants violated the 2015 wage regulations by failing to maintain required tip-credit records and statements and by failing to segregate service and nonservice work.
Procedural history
Fenton brought a putative class action in the Hartford Superior Court concerning tip credits, wage-recordkeeping requirements, and nonservice duties performed by restaurant servers and bartenders. The case was transferred to the Complex Litigation Docket. The trial court, Noble, J., granted the defendants' motion to strike, denied the plaintiff's motion to reargue, and later granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment. The plaintiff filed an amended appeal after the original appeal was dismissed for lack of a final judgment.