Geysen v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc.
Decision Date | 09 August 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 19545.,19545. |
Citation | 142 A.3d 227,322 Conn. 385 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Kevin GEYSEN v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC. |
Daniel J. Krisch, with whom, on the brief were George D. Royster and Logan A. Forsey, Hartford, for the appellant-appellee (defendant).
Todd D. Steigman, Hartford, for the appellee-appellant (plaintiff).
ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH, McDONALD, ESPINOSA and ROBINSON, Js.*
, C.J.
This consolidated appeal1 presents the question of whether an at-will employment agreement, providing that an employee's commissions will not be paid unless the employer has invoiced commissionable amounts to the client prior to the employee's termination, is contrary to public policy and a violation of
General Statutes (Supp.2016) § 31–72
.2 The defendant, Securitas Security Services, USA, Inc., appeals from the stipulated judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Kevin Geysen, on his wage statute claim and the trial court's underlying ruling holding that this commission provision was contrary to public policy. Additionally, the plaintiff cross appeals claiming, inter alia, that the trial court improperly granted the motion to strike counts two and three of the complaint alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, respectively. We agree with the defendant that the trial court improperly determined that the commission provision violated public policy and constituted a violation of § 31–72. With regard to the plaintiff's cross appeal, we hold that count two of the plaintiff's complaint alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing should not have been stricken but that count three alleging wrongful discharge was properly stricken. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.3
The following procedural history and facts are relevant to this appeal. The defendant is a security services company that provides various protection services to industrial and commercial clients. These services are marketed through employees hired as business development managers (managers) who solicit new business from prospective and existing customers. In August, 2005, the defendant offered the plaintiff an at-will position as a manager. The defendant's offer letter, which the plaintiff signed in September, 2005, provided that the plaintiff's compensation was a weekly base salary and commissions on contracts he procured.4 The offer letter referenced and mirrored the defendant's 2003 sales incentive plan, which was in effect at the time the plaintiff commenced his employment.
The defendant subsequently amended its sales incentive plan effective December 23, 2006, and revised the commission provision at issue. Section II, part C of the 2006 sales incentive plan regarding sales eligibility requirements provides that (Emphasis added.)
From 2005 to 2008, the plaintiff worked as a manager, on behalf of the defendant, marketing new and supplemental security services to new and existing customers. Based on the applicable sales incentive plan, once the contract was executed and the sales eligibility requirements were satisfied, including invoicing to the client, the plaintiff was entitled to commission payments without having to perform any other work.
On May 22, 2008, Thomas R. Fagan, the defendant's regional vice president for human resources, hand delivered a memorandum to the plaintiff terminating his employment. The memorandum explained that the defendant had conducted an investigation into improper business activities that had resulted in significant risk exposure to the defendant and, as a result of the investigation findings, the defendant was terminating the plaintiff's employment effective May 22, 2008.
252 Conn. 153, 745 A.2d 178 (2000), the trial court granted the defendant's motion to strike both counts because it believed the plaintiff had an adequate statutory remedy under § 31–72. See id., at 161–62, 745 A.2d 178 ( ) The trial court then rendered a partial judgment for the defendant on the two stricken counts.5
Before trial, the parties agreed that “the plaintiff's claim hinges on whether or not the language in the defendant's sales incentive plan, which provides that the right to commissions ceases upon the plaintiff's termination of employment, is enforceable.” Therefore, the trial court agreed to decide the enforceability question and, in order to facilitate the trial court's determination, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts dated March 1, 2012.6
The trial court determined that, because the plaintiff's right to commissions was not contingent upon his providing any further services to the defendant's customers, he had fully earned his commissions when his employment was terminated. Thus, the trial court found that since the provision in the sales incentive plan deprived him of those earned commissions, resulted in forfeiture of wages, and applied even to an employee who is terminated for no cause, the provision was unenforceable because it “violate[d] two public policies: the first, which strongly favors the payment of wages, and the second, which disfavors forfeitures.”
On October 16, 2014, the parties stipulated to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for unpaid commissions pursuant to § 31–72
, but preserved their respective rights to appeal. The defendant appealed from the stipulated judgment and the plaintiff cross appealed. We now turn to the merits of those appeals.
We first address the defendant's claim that the commission provision was not void on public policy grounds and, therefore, the failure to pay the plaintiff's commissions was not a violation of § 31–72
. We begin by setting out the applicable standard of review and relevant legal principles. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 276 Conn. 314, 326–27, 885 A.2d 734 (2005) ; Brown v. Soh, 280 Conn. 494, 501, 909 A.2d 43 (2006)
; see also State v. Lynch, 287 Conn. 464, 477, 948 A.2d 1026 (2008).
(Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schwartz v. Family Dental Group, P.C., 106 Conn.App. 765, 772–73, 943 A.2d 1122
, cert. denied, 288 Conn. 911, 954 A.2d 184 (2008), quoting Tallmadge Bros., Inc. v. Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., 252 Conn. 479, 505–506, 746 A.2d 1277 (2000).
If the commission provision at issue acts to negate the wage statutes, however, the provision violates public policy. See Parente v. Pirozzoli, 87 Conn.App. 235, 246, 866 A.2d 629 (2005)
( . We must initially...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zweig v. Marvelwood Sch.
...... is a question of law to be decided by the court ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Geysen v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. , 322 Conn. 385, 407, 142 A.3d 227 (2016)."Given the inherent vagueness of the concept of public policy, it is often difficult to define precisely th......
-
Burns v. Adler
...and fair dealing; id., at 238, 618 A.2d 501 ; which extends through the life of the contract. See Geysen v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. , 322 Conn. 385, 405–406, 142 A.3d 227 (2016). Consistent with the covenant, Habetz also focuses on the inequity of the homeowner's receipt of se......
-
Nwachukwu v. Liberty Bank
...of good faith and fair dealing must be tied to an alleged breach of an express contract term. See Geysen v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc. , 322 Conn. 385, 399, 142 A.3d 227 (Conn. 2016) ; Landry v. Spitz , 102 Conn.App. 34, 47, 925 A.2d 334 (2007). See also Steiner v. Lewmar, Inc. , No. 3......
-
Dorfman v. Smith
...receive under the contract must have been taken in bad faith." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Geysen v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc ., 322 Conn. 385, 399, 142 A.3d 227 (2016). The plaintiff's claim does not challenge the purpose of any underlying litigation. Rather, her claim ......