135 N.E.3d 625
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Wilder was hired as a salaried sales VP by DeGood under written agreements (First Agreement Dec. 2008; Second Agreement Aug. 1, 2010) providing a base salary and commission formulas (2% on defined pre-existing and new-product sales tiers).
- During employment parties agreed to altered start date(s), a temporary 25% salary reduction (Jul 20, 2009–Mar 12, 2010), and other informal modifications amid declining sales and disputed performance.
- DeGood documented repeated performance deficiencies, put Wilder on a 90‑day probation after a Sept. 8, 2010 review, and issued a termination Notification on Jan. 5, 2011.
- Wilder sued for unpaid salary, commissions, vacation, bonuses; DeGood counterclaimed for damages and civil theft. After bench trial the court awarded Wilder $9,287.48 in unpaid commissions, statutory attorney’s fees ($15,250), costs, and interest, but denied liquidated damages.
- On appeal, this Court affirmed most rulings, rejected DeGood’s civil‑theft claim, found Wilder did receive the required notice, but remanded for an additional $3,329 in unpaid wages, reasonable attorney’s fees on that claim, calculation of prejudgment interest, and reassessment of costs in Wilder’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilder) | Defendant's Argument (DeGood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parties modified the written employment agreements | Parties’ conduct (start date changes, agreed salary reduction, work adjustments) shows mutual modification | No valid modification; Wilder first breached so cannot enforce contracts | Court: affirmed trial court — evidence supports modification; neither party barred from enforcement |
| Whether Wilder complied with Wage Claim procedures and whether commissions are "wages" under the statute | Wilder complied with procedures (AG authorization) and commissions were pursued under wage claim | Wilder failed to follow statutory procedure; commissions are not "wages" | Court: Wilder complied; DeGood waived the argument that commissions are not wages because it conceded otherwise at trial |
| Sufficiency of evidence for unpaid commissions and entitlement to liquidated damages/attorney fees | Wilder sought unpaid commissions and liquidated damages under I.C. §22‑2‑5‑2; attorney fees under statute | DeGood argued evidence did not support the commission award and that withholding was not in bad faith (no liquidated damages) | Court: affirmed $9,287.48 commission award as within evidence; no liquidated damages awarded (no bad faith); attorney fees awarded per statute |
| Whether DeGood breached the Second Agreement’s 90‑day termination notice and unpaid salary claims | Wilder claimed he lacked required 3‑month notice and sought ~$32,300 (salary/commissions) plus additional unpaid wages (~$22,236) | DeGood asserted it provided conditional 90‑day notice (probation) and properly reduced pay for lack of hours | Court: affirmed that required notice was provided; remanded to award $3,329 unpaid wages (Second Agreement period) and to calculate related attorney fees, prejudgment interest and costs; denied liquidated damages |
| Whether Wilder committed civil theft / DeGood entitled to relief under Crime Victims Relief Act | Wilder denied theft; salary is fixed and paid regardless of hours worked | DeGood claimed Wilder "stole" labor by not working 40 hours weekly and sought fees/damages | Court: Wilder was salaried; employer still owed salary for pay periods worked — trial court correctly rejected DeGood’s theft claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Steve Silveus Ins., Inc. v. Goshert, 873 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (first breaching party may not enforce contract)
- Palmer v. Comprehensive Neurologic Servs., P.C., 864 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate review of damage awards—do not reweigh evidence)
- Design Indus. v. Cassano, 776 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (salary is fixed compensation requiring full payment for weeks employee performs any work)
- Song v. Iatarola, 76 N.E.3d 936 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (prejudgment interest allowed when damages are readily ascertainable)
- Fackler v. Powell, 923 N.E.2d 973 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (prejudgment interest is additional damages to fully compensate lost use of money)
- Yoon v. Yoon, 711 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 1999) (appellate standard: do not reweigh evidence; construe facts in light favorable to judgment)