Williams v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc.
166 A.3d 625
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Cole Williams and Novack Lazare were GNC store managers in Connecticut paid a fixed weekly salary plus variable sales commissions; they received overtime when working >40 hours.
- GNC calculated overtime using the federal "fluctuating workweek" method (divide weekly pay by actual hours worked each week to get the regular rate).
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court under Connecticut wage laws and relied on the Department of Labor mercantile wage order (Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-62-D4), which prescribes a formula for commission-paid employees.
- The District Court certified the legal question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: may a Connecticut mercantile employer use the fluctuating workweek method under state law and the wage order?
- The Connecticut Supreme Court interpreted the statutes and wage order and answered that the wage laws themselves do not bar the fluctuating method generally, but the mercantile wage order precludes its use for employees covered by that order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Connecticut wage statutes prohibit the fluctuating workweek method | Plaintiffs: statutes require a different calculation or at least do not permit fluctuating method for mercantile employees | Defendants: state statute mirrors federal law, which permits the fluctuating method | Held: Statutes (§ 31-76c et seq.) are silent re: non-driver/non-merchandiser categories and do not bar the fluctuating method generally; federal precedent supports permissibility |
| Whether the mercantile wage order permits the fluctuating method | Plaintiffs: wage order requires dividing total earnings by the hours an employee usually works ("usual work week"), so fluctuating method is barred | Defendants: "work week" is a fixed pay-period term meaning divide by actual hours worked in the payroll week, aligning with the fluctuating method | Held: "Usual work week" means hours the employee usually works; the wage order mandates dividing by usual hours and therefore precludes the fluctuating method for mercantile employees |
| Proper textual interpretation standard and role of agency practice/legislative history | Plaintiffs: rely on plain text of wage order; agency non-enforcement not decisive | Defendants: point to legislative history and lack of Department enforcement as indicating allowance | Held: Text is plain and unambiguous; court refuses to consider legislative history or informal agency remarks; lack of enforcement does not establish an official agency interpretation entitled to deference |
| How to compute overtime under the wage order when usual hours differ from actual hours | Plaintiffs: compute regular hourly rate by dividing weekly pay by usual hours (e.g., 40) to determine 1.5x overtime rate | Defendants: compute by dividing by actual hours worked that week | Held: Use divide-by-usual-hours formula; employer must top up pay so each overtime hour equals at least 1.5 times the regular hourly rate derived from usual hours |
Key Cases Cited
- Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1942) (approves fluctuating workweek method under federal law)
- Stokes v. Norwich Taxi, LLC, 289 Conn. 465 (Conn. 2008) (discusses fluctuating regular rate when salary is fixed and hours vary)
- Sarrazin v. Coastal, Inc., 311 Conn. 581 (Conn. 2014) (plain-meaning statutory and regulatory interpretation principles)
- Amaral Bros., Inc. v. Dept. of Labor, 325 Conn. 72 (Conn. 2017) (presumption against implicit repeal or modification of a regulation)