76 So. 3d 438
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dr. Slaughter became System President in April 2006 and signed a 2007 employment contract for July 1, 2007–June 30, 2009, contingent on a parallel settlement agreement; the contract provided base pay $220,000, $1,000 monthly vehicle allowance, housing/living allowance of $3,000 monthly, and a $200,000 annual salary supplement funded by the Foundation; the salary supplement was expressly contingent on Foundation funds and not guaranteed by the Board; the Foundation agreed to provide the supplement and there was evidence of Foundation support for the supplement; Dr. Slaughter’s tenure ended on June 30, 2009, with retirement effective July 1, 2009; he sought past due wages for 500 hours of unused leave and related leave credits, filing suit September 4, 2009, under La. R.S. 23:632; the trial court ruled the supplement and certain allowances were not to be included in the wage calculation, deducting offsets for missing property, and held Dr. Slaughter not entitled to penalties or attorney’s fees; on appeal, the court amended the judgment to reflect the Board as the defendant and affirmed denying additional payments, while addressing various assignments of error and procedural issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the salary supplement should be included in the calculation of ‘amount then due’ for wages. | Slaughter—supplement and allowances formed part of earned compensation and should be included. | Board—supplement was contingent on Foundation funds and not part of wages due by the Board. | Supplement not includable in the wage calculation; wages determinations based on base pay only. |
| Whether LASERS retirement recalculation was proper based on base pay rather than total earned compensation. | Slaughter—retirement should be calculated using full earned compensation including supplement. | Retirement benefits should exclude supplement per constitutional and LASERS provisions. | No order to recalculate LASERS retirement; the decision aligns with retirement statutes limiting inclusion of supplements. |
| Whether offsets for missing Foundation-purchased property and housing overpayments were proper deductions from terminal pay. | Offsets were improper because items belonged to the Foundation; not properly connected to the Board’s wages. | Offsets were appropriate under university policy and inventory/audit findings. | Offsets proper; deductions based on check-out policy and inventory findings were not fines. |
| Whether penalties and attorney fees were warranted for failure to tender wages timely. | Dr. Slaughter should receive penalties and attorney’s fees due to delay. | Dispute over missing property and reasonable delays justify denying penalties and fees. | No penalties or attorney’s fees awarded; good faith dispute justified nonpayment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (great deference to trial court credibility findings in manifest error review)
- Stobart v. State, through Dep’t of Transp. and Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993) (manifest error standard for factual findings)
- Boudreaux v. Hamilton Medical Group, Inc., 644 So.2d 619 (La.1994) (definition of wages under La. R.S. 23:631; pay period concept)
- Jeansonne v. Schmolke, 40 So.3d 347 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2010) (profits-based pay analogous to wages; commissions treated as wages)
- Cochran v. American Advantage Mortgage Co., Inc., 638 So.2d 1235 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1994) (bonuses considered wages when paid for services rendered in a pay period)
- Kaplon v. Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. of Louisiana, 89 So.3d 725 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2010) (bonuses/perks included in compensation if negotiated as part of pay package)
- Price v. Stranco, Inc., 887 So.2d 82 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2004) (definition of wages; earned during a pay period)
- Williams v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 888 So.2d 260 (La.App. 3d Cir. 2004) (bonus within pay package treated as wages in some contexts)