Opinion ID: 2630552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Case Law of Our Court of Appeals

Text: Our court of appeals has had three occasions to consider individual liability under Colorado's Wage Claim Act. In Koontz v. Rosener, 787 P.2d 192 (Colo.App.1989), plaintiffs brought a wage claim against Rosener, the principal majority shareholder of a real estate brokerage firm, for unpaid wages. The court of appeals found that, plaintiffs asserted only a compensation claim against Rosener individually. Plaintiffs were employees of Range ... and therefore, the wage claim should have been asserted against the corporate firm. Id. at 196-97. Three years later, a different panel of the court of appeals held that officers could be individually liable under the Wage Claim Act. The court of appeals opined in Cusimano that the Wage Claim Act's definition section clearly discloses an intent to impose personal liability for wages on corporate officers. Cusimano v. Metro Auto, Inc., 860 P.2d 532, 534 (Colo.App.1992). The court concluded that, the Colorado Wage Claim Act imposes personal liability on at least high ranking corporate officers based solely on their status as officers. Id. at 534. We disagree with the court of appeals' holding and decline to follow it. The Cusimano court provides no analysis for its conclusion. Nothing in the plain language of the Wage Claim Act evidences an intent to impose liability solely based on an officer's status or rank. As we have explained in this opinion, the provisions of the Wage Claim Act, when read together, do not support the Cusimano court's conclusion. In Major v. Chons Bros., Inc., 53 P.3d 781 (Colo.App.2002), the court of appeals held that personal liability may not attach to an agent under the Colorado Wage Claim Act simply because of his job title. Instead, the inquiry must focus on whether [the agent's] status in [the corporation] was such that he had some authority or responsibility to affect [the corporation's] wage payment policies. Id. at 786-87. Nevertheless, to the extent this opinion of the court of appeals follows Cusimano, we disagree and decline to follow it. We hold that the definition of employer in section 8-4-101(6) in the Wage Claim Act does not function as a personal liability provision. Upon review of other jurisdictions, we find no court that has construed its state's Wage Claim Act to impose the kind of blanket personal liability on officers and agents Leonard urges us to adopt. Some jurisdictions with an employer definition similar to ours have imposed civil liability for wage payment on officers based on their high-ranking status or for knowing or willful violations of the wage claim act. See Mohney v. McClure, 529 Pa. 430, 604 A.2d 1021 (1992) (the court, in a per curiam opinion, construed its statute to limit personal liability to top management, or active decision makers); Belcufine v. Aloe, 112 F.3d 633, 639-40 (3rd Cir.1997) (declining to impose personal liability on officers regardless of rank in a bankruptcy situation because they have no ability to control the payment of wages); Dumas v. InfoSafe Corp., 320 S.C. 188, 463 S.E.2d 641, 645 (S.C.Ct.App.1995) (only officer who knowingly permits the corporation to violate the act is personally liable). We decline to follow such precedent, as it would require us to read into our Wage Claim Act terms like knowingly permit, high ranking, or top management as the predicate for personal liability. Nothing in the actual language of the wage acts of these jurisdictions attaches personal civil liability to only high ranking officers or knowing violations. This is court made law, apparently deriving from the unwillingness of those courts to use the employer definition to impose the kind of blanket liability Leonard urges on us in this case.