2006 Ct. Sup. 21529
No. 4100689S.Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New London at Norwich.
November 15, 2006.
ORDER RE DOUBLE DAMAGES PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. SECTION 216(b) AND CONN. GEN. STAT. SECTIONS 31-68 and 31-72
ROBERT C. LEUBA, JTR.
In this case there was a jury verdict, for the Plaintiff under both the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. Section 206, et seq. and Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 31-68 and 31-72, relating to overtime wages, awarding the sum of $85,257.90 and $56,026.62, respectively. The Plaintiff now has moved for an award of liquidated and/or double damages pursuant to federal and state law.
The Plaintiff’s motion for liquidated damages and/or double damages is granted.
I. Background
On September 21, 2006, the jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff, in the amount of $85,257.90 and $56,026.62, respectively, for violations of the FLSA and Connecticut overtime laws.
In response to Interrogatories #4 and #7 included under the FLSA claim, the jury found that all the Defendants had acted “willfully.”
In responding to Interrogatory #15, included under the Connecticut law claims, the jury found that the Defendant Norwich Taxi, LLC had acted in bad faith, arbitrarily or unreasonably in not paying overtime.
II. Conclusion A. Liquidated Damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
The FLSA provides that “[a]ny employer who violates the provisions of [29 U.S.C. Sections 206 or 207] shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional CT Page 21530 equal amount as liquidated damages.” 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The FLSA also provides an employer with a defense to an award of liquidated damages if it can prove to the Court that its acts or omissions were both done in good faith and based upon a reasonable belief that such acts or omissions were not in violation of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. Section 260. The employer bears the heavy burden of establishing the defense through “plain and substantial evidence of at least an honest intention to ascertain what the Act requires and to comply with it.” Brock v. Wilamowsky, 833 F.2d 11, 19 (2d Cir. 1987). Even if the Defendants are able to meet this burden, the Court may, in the exercise of discretion, award liquidated damages. See Reich v. S. New England Telecomms., 121 F.3d 58, 71 n. 5 (2d Cir. 1996).
In this case, the jury made a specific, and now unchallenged, finding that all the Defendants had acted willfully. Such a finding precludes the affirmative defense of “good faith” and requires the imposition of liquidated damages in an amount equal to the jury’s back pay award Singer v. City of Waco, Tex., 324 F.3d 813, 823 (5th Cir. 2003).
But even if the law did not require such a finding, the defendants have not sustained their burden of proving good faith. In fact, the evidence in the case is to the contrary.
The Plaintiff’s motion for liquidated damages is granted and the Court hereby awards the Plaintiff $85,257.90 in liquidated damages, an amount equal to the damages awarded by the jury under the FLSA.
B. Double Damages pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 31-68 and 31-72
Connecticut wage statutes provide for a discretionary award of double damages to prevailing employees. Under either Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 31-68 and 31-72, “an employee may recover in a civil action, twice the full amount of the wages due.” An award of double damages is appropriate where there is evidence of bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness Butler v. Hartford Technical Institute, Inc., 243 Conn. 454, 470, 704 A.2d 222 (1997); Sansone v. Clifford, 219 Conn. 217, 229, 592 A.2d 931
(1991). In this case, the jury made a specific and unchallenged finding of bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness, eliminating the need for this Court to examine the record for evidence of such conduct. Again, even if the law did not require such a ruling by the court in response to the jury interrogatory, the evidence in this case would lead the court, in the exercise of discretion, to find that double damages were appropriate. CT Page 21531 The Plaintiff’s motion for double damages under state law therefore is granted and the Court hereby awards the Plaintiff $56,026.62 in double damages, an amount equal to the damages awarded by the jury against the defendant Norwich Taxi, LLC.
Consistent with well-settled law which forbids double recovery for the same injury, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the greater of the following amounts.
From any or all the Defendants: Under the FLSA, $85,257.90 as back wages and an additional sum of $85,257.90 as liquidated damages, an amount equal to the damages awarded by the jury, for a total amount of $170,615.80.
From the Defendant Norwich Taxi: Under Connecticut law, $56,026.62 as back wages and an additional sum of $56,026.62 as double damages, an amount equal to the damages awarded by the jury, for a total amount of $112,053.24.
In addition, the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys fees and costs as described in this Court’s ruling on attorneys fees and costs, issued this date. CT Page 21532