Opinion ID: 2630552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Colorado's Wage Claim Act Is Ambiguous On The Question Of Officer And Agent Personal Liability.

Text: Leonard's contention of corporate officer and agent personal liability for employee wages and compensation relies entirely on the assertion that the Wage Claim Act's definition of employer plainly imposes joint and several liability on corporate officers for payment of wages and compensation due and payable upon termination of the employment relationship by an employer. This definition, section 8-4-101(6), provides: As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires: (6) Employer means every person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, migratory field labor contractor or crew leader, receiver, or other officer of court in Colorado, and any agent or officer thereof, of the above mentioned classes, employing any person in Colorado ... § 8-4-101(6), 3 C.R.S. (2002) (emphasis added). The General Assembly adopted this definition in 1959. See Ch. 176, sec. 2, § 80-25-1 et seq., 1959 Colo. Sess. Laws 537. In 1901, when the legislature first adopted the Wage Claim Act, its provisions applied only to corporations. Ch.55, sec. 1, 1901 Colo. Sess. Laws 128. In 1919, the General Assembly added quasi-public corporations. Ch. 183, sec. 1, § 6981, 1919 Colo. Sess. Laws 617. Looking at the current definition of employer, we do not find any words stating that officers and agents of a corporation are individually liable for wage and compensation payment due under the employment contract. In contrast, the Wage Claim Acts of other states, notably Illinois and Kansas, contain such language. Illinois statutes provide that: Any officers of a corporation or agents of an employer who knowingly permit such employer to violate the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to be the employers of the employees of the corporation.