Opinion ID: 1926123
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: timely wage payment statute

Text: [¶ 5] The employees allege that their employers' practice of paying them on a bi-weekly basis is a violation of 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 621, 626-A. [2] Because of these violations, they contend that they are entitled to enforce a civil forfeiture of $100 to $500 per violation and, in addition, to recover treble damages, costs, and attorney fees.
[¶ 6] The plaintiffs contend that the motion court erred in holding that 26 M.R.S.A. § 626-A does not allow for a private right of action for employees to collect forfeitures against their employers. Section 626-A provides for a forfeiture of $100 to $500 for each violation to be enforced against a party when that party is in violation of sections 621, 622, 623, 626, 628, or 629. See 26 M.R.S.A. § 626-A. The statute, however, does not state to whom that forfeiture is payable. [¶ 7] Because section 626-A does not state that a private right of action exists, such a right of action can only be implied. In Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods, Inc., 486 A.2d 97 (Me.1984), we dealt with a similar issue of whether 26 M.R.S.A. § 630 [3] contains a private right of action to assert a civil forfeiture. See Larrabee, 486 A.2d at 101. We noted that when the Legislature deems it essential that a private party have a right of action, it has expressly created one. Id. For the purpose of the creation of a private right of action, the Legislature expresses its intent in the statutory language or in the legislative history. [¶ 8] In the present case, it is clear that sections 621 and 626-A were enacted for the benefit of wage earners and that these plaintiffs are wage earners. We examine whether there is any indication of legislative intent to create or deny a private remedy of forfeiture, and whether implying the existence of such a remedy is consistent with the underlying purpose of the legislative scheme. [¶ 9] In Larrabee, we concluded that section 630 created no private right of action to enforce a forfeiture. See Larrabee, 486 A.2d at 101. Section 626-A has language similar to that of section 630 and is part of the same legislative scheme. See 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 621-634 (1988 & Supp.1998). These provisions should be interpreted harmoniously. See Estate of Whittier, 681 A.2d at 2. [¶ 10] Moreover, title 17-A, section 4-B states that civil violations ... are enforceable by the Attorney General, his representative or any other appropriate public official in a civil action to recover what may be designated a fine, penalty or other sanction, or to secure the forfeiture that may be decreed by the law. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 4-B (Supp.1999). The civil forfeiture referenced in section 626-A is the type of civil violation that is solely enforceable by the Attorney General unless otherwise specified. Cf. Larrabee, 486 A.2d at 101. We discern no intention on the part of the Legislature, from either the plain language of the statute or the legislative history, that would provide for a private right of action under section 626-A to enforce the civil forfeiture. Moreover, our interpretation is in harmony with that of the Department of Labor, which has maintained that the pursuit of these penalties is its exclusive province. See Maine Bankers Ass'n v. Bureau of Banking, 684 A.2d at 1306 (holding that deference should be given to an agency's interpretation of a statute it is charged with enforcing). The Department may elect to pursue such remedies, but the decision to do so is a discretionary one. See New England Outdoor Ctr. v. Commissioner of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 2000 ME 66, ¶ 12, 748 A.2d 1009, 1014.
[¶ 11] The employees also contend that the motion court erred in dismissing their claims for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and attorney fees under section 626-A by concluding that late wages were not unpaid wages. Section 626-A in effect at the time these cases were initiated stated: Any employer is liable to the employee or employees for the amount of unpaid wages and health benefits. Upon a judgment being rendered in favor of any employee or employees, in any action brought to recover unpaid wages or health benefits under this subchapter, such judgment includes, in addition to the unpaid wages or health benefits adjudged to be due, a reasonable rate of interest, costs of suit including a reasonable attorney's fee, and an additional amount equal to twice the amount of unpaid wages as liquidated damages. 26 M.R.S.A. § 626-A. Section 621 required that wages were to be paid by the employers on a weekly basis. See 26 M.R.S.A. § 621. [4] Therefore, the employees contend, as soon as a week passes without payment, such wages are unpaid under the statute, and a cause of action thus accrues for those wages, costs, attorney fees, and liquidated damages. Cf. Alie v. Nadeau, 93 Me. 282, 285, 44 A. 891, 891-92 (1899) (holding that a cause of action for unpaid wages accrues on each instance that the wages are not paid). [¶ 12] The right of the employee created by section 626-A is to sue to collect unpaid wages under this subchapter. 26 M.R.S.A. § 626-A. The term unpaid wages, however, is not explicitly defined in section 626-A, nor is it defined in section 621. It is appropriate, then, to look to the legislative scheme of which it is a part to ascertain the meaning of unpaid wages. See City of Rockland, 1998 ME 238, ¶ 5, 721 A.2d at 982. We have previously stated that unpaid wages under section 626-A [are] precisely what [are] owing when an employer does not pay an employee for work. Cooper v. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co., 635 A.2d 952, 955 (Me.1993). It is not disputed that, in the case of these employees, their wages were ultimately paid. [¶ 13] Pursuant to section 626, the right to collect or enforce an action for an unpaid wage accrues when an employer fails to pay an employee after termination of employment and upon that employee's demand for payment. See 26 M.R.S.A. § 626 (1988 & Supp.1999). Under section 626, [a]n employee leaving employment must be paid in full within a reasonable time after demand at the office of the employer where payrolls are kept and wages are paid. Id. The statute states further that [f]or the purposes of this subchapter, a reasonable time means the earlier of either the next day on which employees would regularly be paid or a day not more than 2 weeks after the day on which the demand is made. Id. [¶ 14] When the employee remains employed but asserts that some or all of his or her earned wages are unpaid, the right to sue to collect unpaid wages accrues if an employee is not paid on the employee's regularly scheduled payday, and the difference is not made up by the next regularly scheduled payday. See 26 M.R.S.A. § 621(2). [¶ 15] Thus, the statute reveals a legislative intent to allow a private litigant recourse against an employer for an unpaid wage only if: (1) the employee has been discharged, subsequently demands to be paid, and the employer refuses to do so, see 26 M.R.S.A. § 626; or (2) when that employer has failed to pay a current employee in full, if the employer fails to pay the amount withheld by that employee's next regularly scheduled payday, see 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 621, 626-A. [5] [¶ 16] The employees note that section 621 explicitly states that [t]his subsection shall not be construed to permit nonpayment or withholding of wages when due. 26 M.R.S.A. § 621(2). They argue that this language precludes a construction of the statute that allows employers to catch up on their payment of wages by the next pay period. We disagree. First, that sentenceif read the way that the employees contendwould obviate the language in section 621 requiring that employers make up late wages by the next payday. Second, if an employer pays all wages in full by the next pay period, although that employer is not subject to an employee's private right of action under section 626-A, nevertheless the employer is subject to a civil forfeiture brought by the Attorney General pursuant to the same section. Accordingly, a wage paid in full, but paid late, is not unpaid under section 621. The remedy for the enforcement of a late wage is the not insignificant civil forfeiture penalties that can be brought by the Attorney General. [6] Only if a wage remains unpaid beyond the time frames set out in sections 621(2) or 626 may an employee recover in a private right of action.