Horrocks v. Keepers, Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 November 2022
• Docket Number: AC 44321
• Citation: 216 Conn.App. 275,285 A.3d 54
• Parties: Crystal HORROCKS, et al. v. KEEPERS, INC., et al.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

216 Conn.App. 275

285 A.3d 54

Crystal HORROCKS, et al.

v.KEEPERS, INC., et al.

AC 44321

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 13, 2022

Officially Released November 1, 2022

Stephen R. Bellis, New Haven, for the appellants (defendants).

Kenneth J. Krayeske, Meriden, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Alvord, Cradle and Flynn, Js.

CRADLE, J.

This appeal stems from a dispute between the plaintiffs, Crystal Horrocks, Yaritza Reyes, Dina Danielle Caviello, Jacqueline Green, Sugeily Ortiz and Zuleyma Bella Lopez, and the defendants, Keepers, Inc., and Joseph Regensburger,¹ as to the proper characterization of the plaintiffs as independent contractors, instead of employees, for services rendered as exotic dancers at a gentlemen's club owned and operated by the defendants. The defendants appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to vacate, and granting the plaintiffs’ application to confirm, arbitration awards finding that the plaintiffs were employees, not independent contractors, and awarding them damages. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court set forth the following relevant procedural history. "The plaintiffs ... brought suit against the defendants ... for alleged violations of the relevant state and federal minimum wage and overtime laws. As alleged in the plaintiffs’ complaint, each of the plaintiffs worked as an exotic dancer at Keepers Gentlemen's Club located in Milford. This establishment is owned and operated by the defendants. The plaintiffs allege[d] that, during their time working for the defendants, they were improperly characterized as independent contractors as opposed to employees.

According to the plaintiffs, this improper employment relationship ... caused them, inter alia, to be unable to obtain needed workers’ compensation benefits, as well as not be paid the appropriate minimum wage and overtime pay. The plaintiffs also contend[ed] [that] they were illegally forced to pay the defendants certain gratuities that they received from customers. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ eight count complaint allege[d] the following causes of action: (1) count one—failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 206 ; (2) count two—failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207 ; (3) count three—unlawful deductions from wages and/or gratuities in violation of the FLSA; (4) count four—failure to pay minimum wage in violation of General Statutes § 31-60 ; (5) count five—failure to pay overtime in violation of General Statutes § 31-76b ; (6) count six—unlawful deductions from wages in violation of General Statutes § 31-71e ; (7) count seven—unjust enrichment; and (8) count eight—breach of implied contract.

"On May 26, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss and/or stay this action ... on the ground that the employment relationship between the parties was governed by an entertainment lease agreement [agreement] that contained a mandatory arbitration clause. The court, Wilson , J. , denied the motion to dismiss ... on October 13, 2015, but it also ordered a stay of the proceedings pending arbitration on January 4, 2016 .... [T]he parties [thereafter] proceeded to an arbitration .... On July 18, 2019, [the arbitrator] issued his initial arbitration award wherein he determined that the plaintiffs were appropriately characterized as employees as opposed to independent contractors. Subsequently, on March 17, 2020, [the arbitrator] issued a further arbitration award where he determined, inter alia, that the ... agreement was illegal and unenforceable because it was an attempt to circumvent statutory wage and hour requirements, and, as a result, the plaintiffs were entitled to be paid the appropriate minimum and overtime wage for the hours they worked for the period between April 14, 2013, to April 14, 2015. [The arbitrator] awarded the plaintiffs $113,560.75 in damages. [The arbitrator] further denied the plaintiffs’ request for double liquidated damages because he found [that] the defendants acted with a good faith belief they were complying with the law, but he also gave the plaintiffs $85,000 in attorney's fees and $2981.16 in costs." (Footnotes omitted.)

On March 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an application to confirm both the July 18, 2019 and the March 17, 2020 arbitration awards. On April 7, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to vacate the arbitration awards, claiming that (1) the arbitrator exceeded his authority because, when he determined that the agreement was void and unenforceable, the arbitration clause within the agreement was also rendered unenforceable, (2) the arbitrator's award of attorney's fees was improper and should be vacated because the arbitrator relied on the current revision of General Statutes § 31-72 as opposed to the iteration of the statute that was in existence between April, 2013, and April, 2015, and (3) it was incorrect for the arbitrator to rely on oral testimony of the plaintiffs regarding how much time they had worked. By way of a memorandum of decision filed on October 2, 2020, the court, Abrams , J. , granted the plaintiffs’ application to confirm the arbitration awards and denied the defendants’ motion to vacate the awards. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court erred by failing to conclude that the arbitrator's calculation of damages constituted a manifest disregard of the law because the arbitrator "should have based [that calculation] on the written records [presented by the defendants] not [on] a verbal estimate of the plaintiffs.² We disagree.

"[T]he manifest disregard of the law ground for vacating an arbitration award is narrow and should be reserved for circumstances of an arbitrator's extraordinary lack of fidelity to established legal principles." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Blondeau v. Baltierra , 337 Conn. 127, 161, 252 A.3d 317 (2020). "Under this highly deferential standard ... our precedent instructs that three elements must be satisfied before we will vacate an arbitration award on the ground that the [arbitrator] manifestly disregarded the law: (1) the error was obvious and capable of being readily and instantly perceived by the average person qualified to serve as an arbitrator; (2) the [arbitrator] appreciated the existence of a clearly governing legal principle but decided to ignore it; and (3) the governing law alleged to have been ignored by the [arbitrator] is [well-defined], explicit, and clearly applicable. ... [E]very reasonable presumption and intendment will be made in favor of the [arbitration] award and of the arbitrators’ acts and proceedings." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 161–62, 252 A.3d 317.

In setting forth the basis for the calculation of his award of damages, the arbitrator recounted the evidence presented by the parties, including evidence of the record keeping procedures used by the defendants to record the hours worked by the plaintiffs. The defendants submitted that they had used two systems to account for attendance. First, they used a sort of "punch card" system, whereby the identification card of each plaintiff was photocopied at the beginning of each shift, and from those "punch cards," the administrative staff would create a "daily business recap." After that recap was produced each day, the punch cards were discarded. The defendants also utilized a biometric system that scanned the plaintiffs’ fingerprints at the beginning of their shifts. Due to a system malfunction, however, the records from that system were lost. Although the plaintiffs did not have written records of the hours they had worked, the arbitrator considered their oral testimony regarding those hours, along with the incomplete records of the defendants, to calculate damages.

Before the trial court, the defendants challenged the damages awarded by the arbitrator on the ground that they constituted a manifest disregard of the law. In rejecting the defendants’ argument, the court explained that, "[a]lthough the defendants attempt to frame this portion of their motion as an attack on the overly speculative nature of [the arbitrator's] damages calculation, in reality, the defendants believe that [the arbitrator] erred when he credited the plaintiffs’ oral testimony over certain written documentation offered by the defendants." The court referred to the arbitrator's assessment of the evidence submitted by the parties, explaining that the arbitrator had concluded that the defendants’ record keeping was "inadequate and incomplete" and, therefore, that, "in calculating [the] plaintiffs’ damages, [he] ... necessarily relied on both the plaintiffs’ testimony and the partial records of the defendants." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) On that basis, the court noted that the arbitrator "indicate[d] that he examined the defendants’ attendance records, but he found that they were not completely accurate. Therefore, he also relied on the plaintiffs’ oral testimony in order to determine a complete total of the number of hours that they worked." The court concluded: "This finding is more than substantial evidence to support [the arbitrator's] damages...