Goulas v. B & B Oilfield Services, Inc.
69 So. 3d 750
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Two B&B Oilfield employees, Goulas and Wilkins, filed unpaid wages claims under La.R.S. 23:631, 23:632 against their employer.
- Trial court dismissed the claims, granting B&B’s unauthorized use of summary proceedings exception, based on purported novations.
- Goulas resigned July 6, 2009; a post-resignation agreement paid six monthly installments, with partial payment (first installment) and a building transfer in lieu of the second installment, after which payments ceased.
- Wilkins resigned January 5, 2009; alleged arrangement kept him on payroll through March 31, 2009 in exchange for ongoing health benefits and salary, reducing commissions owed.
- Goulas and Wilkins pursued a summary proceeding to recover unpaid wages and penalties; the court found novation and dismissed the claims, prompting appeals.
- Appellate court reversed on the novation issue, held post-resignation agreements were void as novations/against public policy, but awarded wages, penalties, and attorney fees to both plaintiffs with some set-off considerations for Wilkins.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary proceedings were proper for wage claims. | Goulas/Wilkins: wage claims are governed by La.R.S. 23:631, 23:632 and eligible for summary relief. | B&B: the post-resignation agreements caused novation, preventing summary relief from applying. | Summary proceedings proper; reversal of novation finding required. |
| Whether a novation occurred extinguishing wage obligations. | Goulas/Wilkins: no valid novation; contracts merely modify payment timing. | B&B: post-resignation agreements constitute novations extinguishing wage debts. | Novation did not occur; post-resignation agreements were void as against public policy. |
| Entitlement to penalty wages and attorney fees under La.R.S. 23:632. | Goulas/Wilkins: penalties and fees should be awarded given unpaid wages and proper demand. | B&B: possible equitable defenses negate penalties or fees. | Goulas awarded $40,909.09 penalty wages and $10,000 trial/appeal fees; Wilkins awarded wages with set-off and $15,000 total attorney fees; penalty wages denied for Wilkins due to good-faith novation issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. Kentwood Spring Water, Inc., 583 So.2d 1227 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1991) (contracts cannot waive employer duties under La.R.S. 23:631; public policy prohibits such novations)
- Wyatt v. Avoyelles Parish School Board, 831 So.2d 906 (La. 2002) (23:632 penal statute strictly construed but may yield to equitable results)
- Becker v. Choate, 204 So.2d 680 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1967) (equitable defenses may limit penalty wages under 23:632)
- Carriere v. Pee Wee’s Equipment Co., 364 So.2d 555 (La. 1978) (noviation requires clear intent to extinguish original obligation)
- Placid Oil Co. v. Taylor, 325 So.2d 313 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1975) (burden of proof to establish novation on party asserting it)
- Gonzales v. Xerox Corp., 320 So.2d 163 (La. 1975) (appellate review of factual issues within complete record)