Cusimano v. Metro Auto, Inc., 91CA0842
| Decision Date | 05 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91CA0842,91CA0842 |
| Citation | 860 P.2d 532 |
| Parties | 1 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 342 Vincent CUSIMANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METRO AUTO, INC., d/b/a Metro Honda, Inc., Metro Olds, Inc., Metro Suzuki, Inc. and Metro Hyundai, Inc., Defendants, and Melville T. Nelson and Nancy J. Menz, Defendants-Appellees. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Bart Rice, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Randall J. Paulsen & Associates, P.C., Randall J. Paulsen, Westminster, for defendants and defendants-appellees.
Opinion by Judge SMITH.
Plaintiff, Vincent Cusimano, appeals from the judgment dismissing his wage claims against defendants Melville T. Nelson, president and director of Metro Auto, Inc., and Nancy J. Menz, Metro's secretary-treasurer. We reverse.
Cusimano was employed by Metro from June 1989 until February 17, 1990. He was guaranteed a minimum salary of $5,000 per month, which Metro failed to pay for his last two months of employment.
On February 21, 1990, Cusimano served a written demand for payment under § 8-4-104(3), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B) on Nelson and Metro and later filed this action seeking wages, statutory penalties, and attorney fees under the Wage Claim Act, § 8-4-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B).
In a trial to the court, the claims against Nelson and Menz were dismissed at the conclusion of Cusimano's case for lack of proof. The trial court entered judgment against Metro for $15,000 in unpaid wages and the statutory penalty under § 8-4-104, and $11,500 in attorney fees under § 8-4-114, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B).
We first reject Cusimano's argument that the depositions and one exhibit are relevant to the issues before us. Although the depositions and exhibit were submitted to the trial court as exhibits for summary judgment and are part of the record on appeal, the record does not show that they were admitted into evidence at trial. They therefore cannot show that the trial court erred in dismissing the claims for lack of evidence at trial.
Cusimano contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his wage claims against the individual defendants. We agree in part.
The Wage Claim Act is a comprehensive wage code designed to require employers to make timely payment of wages earned by an employee and to provide adequate judicial relief when employers fail to pay wages when due. Lee v. Great Empire Broadcasting, Inc., 794 P.2d 1032 (Colo.App.1989).
Under § 8-4-104(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B), when an employer terminates an employment relationship, wages earned and unpaid at the time of the discharge are due and payable immediately. When an employee terminates an employment relationship, earned and unpaid wages are due and payable on the next regular payday.
Section 8-4-104(3), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B) provides that an employer who refuses without a good faith legal justification to pay wages when due under § 8-4-104(1) is liable to the employee for a penalty "in addition to the compensation legally proven to be due." Under § 8-4-114, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B), an employee who recovers either wages alone or both wages and a penalty under § 8-4-104 is entitled to an award of attorney fees. See Hofer v. Polly Little Realtors, Inc., 37 Colo.App. 86, 543 P.2d 114 (1975).
Section 8-4-101(6), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B) defines employer as "every person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, migratory field labor contractor or crew leader, receiver, or other officer of court in Colorado, and any agent or officer thereof, of the above mentioned classes, employing any person in Colorado...." (emphasis added)
Cusimano argues that under § 8-4-101(6), as officers of Metro, the individual defendants were liable as employers under the Wage Claim Act. We agree that, as officers, they were liable for wages due, attorney fees, and penalties just as the corporation would be.
The issue of personal liability for corporate officers under the Wage Claim statute has not previously been resolved in a Colorado appellate holding, but our supreme court has stated that § 8-4-101(6) is "at least susceptible" to the interpretation that corporate officers are personally liable for wages due employees. Fischer v. District Court, 193 Colo. 24, 561 P.2d 1266 (1977). See also Thornton, Rights of Terminated Employees: Expanding Remedies, 21 Colo.Law. 1639 (August 1992).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has interpreted the virtually identical definition of employer in that state's Wage Payment and Collection Law, Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 43, § 260.2a (Perdon 1992 Supp.), to impose personal liability on corporate officers upon proof that the officers were actively involved in corporate decisionmaking. Mohney v. McClure, 529 Pa. 430, 604 A.2d 1021 (1992), aff'g, 390 Pa.Super. 338, 568 A.2d 682 (1990). However, the dissent in Mohney argued that the statutory language clearly and unambiguously imposed personal liability on corporate officers and did not require proof of active involvement in corporate decisionmaking. We find the dissent more persuasive.
The primary task in statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the General Assembly, and, to discern that intent, the court should look first to the plain language of the statute. Farmers Group, Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419 (Colo.1991).
The definition of employer in § 8-4-101(6) clearly discloses an intent to impose personal liability for wages on corporate officers. It contains no express requirements for liability beyond status as an officer.
We reject defendants' argument that they could be liable for wages under the Act only upon proof that they had some duty in relation to the unpaid employee.
The definition of employer in § 8-4-101(6) is not expressly limited to corporate officers with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leonard v. McMorris
...wages earned by an employee and to provide adequate judicial relief when employers fail to pay wages when due." Cusimano v. Metro Auto, Inc., 860 P.2d 532, 533 (Colo.Ct.App.1992) (citing Lee v. Great Empire Broad., Inc., 794 P.2d 1032 [Colo. Ct.App.1989]). Under section 8-4-104(1), "[w]hen ......
-
Major v. Chons Bros., Inc.
...to the Colorado Supreme Court pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 27.1 and C.A.R. 21), a division of this court held in Cusimano v. Metro Auto, Inc., 860 P.2d 532, 534 (Colo.App.1992), that under the CWCA a corporation's president and secretary/treasurer could be held personally liable for the payment......
-
Cagle v. Mathers Family Trust
...timely payment of wages ... and to provide adequate judicial relief when employers fail to pay wages when due.” Cusimano v. Metro Auto, Inc., 860 P.2d 532, 533 (Colo.App.1992); see alsoLambdin, 903 P.2d at 1129. “[A] state in which a party is domiciled has an interest in rules it promulgate......
-
Leonard v. McMorris, 01SA380.
...panel of the court of appeals held that officers could be individually liable under the Wage Claim Act. The court of appeals opined in Cusimano that the Wage Claim Act's definition section "clearly discloses an intent to impose personal liability for wages on corporate officers." Cusimano v......
-
Managing the Distressed Enterprise: the Turf of Personal Liability
...§ 3713(b). 26. E.g., McGlothin v. Limbach, 565 N.E.2d 1276 (Ohio 1990). 27. CRS §§ 8-4-104, 8-4-101(6); Cusimano v. Metro Auto, Inc., 860 P.2d 532 (Colo.App. 1992). 28. See, e.g., CRS § 7-112-101(1)(b)(encumbering all, or substantially all, of the corporate assets outside the ordinary cours......
-
State Laws: a Growing Minefield for Employers
...by 1091 the law and to apprise themselves of the continual changes affecting the workplace. NOTES _____________________ Footnotes: 1. 860 P.2d 532 (Colo.App. 1992). The decision in Cusimano was essentially presaged in a previous article, Thornton, "Rights of Terminated Employees: Expanding ......
-
New Developments in Colorado Wage Law
...party entitled to attorney fees on that claim). 8. Major v. Chons Bros., Inc., 53 P.2d 781 (Colo.App. 2002); Cusimano v. Metro Auto, Inc., 860 P.2d 532 (Colo.App. 9. Leonard, supra, note 2 at 330. 10. Id. at 337, quoting Ill.Comp.Stat. § 300.620 (2002) ("An officer of a corporation or an ag......