Lead Opinion
Defendant appellant The Serendipity, Inc., of Boise, a retail clothing store, appeals frоm a judgment awarding to plaintiff respondent Gregg Ann Rodwell three times the amount of wages found to be due hеr from Serendipity. Rodwell’s wage claim stems from her employment as Serendipity’s manager between Oсtober 31, 1974, and November 1, 1975. The trial court found that, under her contract with Serendipity, Rodwell was entitled to а yearly bonus computed as a percentage of Serendipity’s gross sales for the year.
On appeal, Serendipity disputes the application of the treble damage provision of I.C. § 45-615(4) to this case. It argues that the provision applies only to actions prosecuted by the director of the Department of Labor аnd Industrial Services, acting in behalf of aggrieved wage claimants. Serendipity also contends that if wagе claimants suing in their own behalf may recover treble damages under I.C. § 45-615(4), they may do so only with respect tо claims of $450 or less. Finding both of these arguments without merit, we affirm.
Serendipity’s arguments in this case have been imрlicitly rejected by this Court in two previous decisions. Both Goff v. H.J.H. Co.,
“Idaho Code 45-615 allows any employee who has a claim for unpaid wages to bring suit in his own behalf in any court of сompetent jurisdiction. If the claim is for under $450.00 the employee may assign the claim to the commissioner of labor who will bring the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the employee. If mоre than one employee has a claim, class actions may be brought either by the commissionеr or by the employees. “Subsection 4 of I.C. § 45-615 states that if the employee is successful in his suit, or the commissioner if he brought it in behalf of the employee, there shall be awarded to the employee or сommissioner all reasonable costs of suit and damages in the amount of three times the amount of wages found due and owing.”95 Idaho at 838-39 ,521 P.2d at 662-63 .
The Lawless decision is likewise adverse to Serendipity’s position here:
“As amended, the Idahо Claims for Wages Statute provided a comprehensive recovery scheme. First, by authorizing the prosecution of claims by the Department of Labor, the amendments made the enforcement of the statute more likely. And second, as we interpret the statute, the legislature provided an aggrieved employee with alternative remedies to meet the circumstances of his particular case. Which statutory provision will better serve the employee will depend upon the amount of the outstаnding wages. If the amount of outstanding wages is nominal, the employee will be better served by seeking recovery under I.C. § 45-606. In addition to the amount of outstanding wages, he could receive up to a maximum of thirty days additiоnal wages. If the amount of outstanding wages is larger, however, it will behoove the employee to sеek a treble recovery under I.C. § 45-615(4).”98 Idaho at 177 ,560 P.2d at 499 .
For the reasons set forth in Lawless v. Davis, supra, we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that Rod-well was еntitled to treble damages under I.C. § 45-615(4).
Rodwell has requested attorney fees on appeal. While attоrney fees may be awarded on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-121, Minich v. Gem State Developers, Inc.,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. The trial court concluded that the term “wages” included Rodwell’s bonus. This conelusion is not challenged, and we therefore have no occasion to consider the matter.
Concurrence Opinion
specially concurring.
I concur in the Court’s opinion exсept that portion that states attorney fees may be awarded on appeal pursuant tо I.C. § 12-121 under appropriate circumstances. I continue to adhere to the view expressed in my dissenting opinion in Minich v. Gem
Concurrence Opinion
concurring specially:
I concur that the judgment of the trial court should be аffirmed based on the decision of this Court in Lawless v. Davis,