Opinion ID: 2543899
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of the Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and New Trial

Text: [¶ 15] As stated earlier, Fremont made two motions for judgment as a matter of law, the latter motion being coupled with a motion for a new trial in the alternative. Fremont contends that the evidence presented at trial results in the drawing of only one conclusion, that Jensen waived his contract claims. [¶ 16] We have defined waiver as the intentional relinquishment of a known right that must be manifested in some unequivocal manner. Baldwin v. Dube, 751 P.2d 388, 392 (Wyo.1988). While the necessary intent for waiver may be implied from conduct, the conduct should speak the intent clearly. Murphy v. Stevens, 645 P.2d 82, 93 (Wyo.1982) (citing Bankers Trust Co. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 282 F.2d 106 (9th Cir.1960), cert. den. 368 U.S. 822, 82 S.Ct. 41, 7 L.Ed.2d 27 (1961)). In addition, we have recognized that the three elements of wavier are: 1) an existing right; 2) knowledge of that right; and 3) an intent to relinquish it. Jackson State Bank v. Homar, 837 P.2d 1081, 1086 (Wyo.1992) (citing Ramirez v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 580 P.2d 1136, 1138 (Wyo.1978)). The only element of waiver truly at issue is Jensen's intent to waive his right to make a claim for his asserted wage guarantee. The party asserting waiver carries the burden of proving it. Murphy, at 93. Therefore, Fremont had the obligation of proving that Jensen explicitly intended to relinquish his right to payment under the contract. [¶ 17] Fremont's theory of waiver is based entirely on the assertion that Jensen accepted his paychecks without resigning or complaining until Fremont sued for the A/R account balance. Fremont calls attention to many instances of Jensen failing to assert that he was underpaid to support the proposition that he waived any right to claim he was shorted. In essence, Fremont contends that it is inconceivable that Jensen would have been underpaid for 22 out of 28 months and never assert his right to full payment during that time period. [¶ 18] In particular, Fremont points to testimony that Jensen failed to complain that he had been underpaid after receiving his first check, even though his first paycheck came at a time when Jensen had not yet moved his family to Cody and Jensen had not yet closed on his house. Fremont also proffers in support of its contention Jensen's failure to mention the shortage to Owen, Orkney, and Chuck Guschewsky, the company's majority owner, along with Orkney's testimony that Jensen never saved the back-up documentation pertaining to his commission and A/R account charges. Fremont also directs this court to the fact that Jensen never asserted that the shortfall in wages could be offset against any amount that he owed on the A/R account. Finally, Fremont offers Owen's testimony of Jensen's request in May of 1997 that he needed to make at least $6,500 a month or his wife was going to move back to Denver. Nevertheless, our review of the record indicates that these matters, besides not clearly speaking to Jensen's alleged intent to waive, are all matters in dispute. [¶ 19] For example, we note that evidence presented by Jensen showed that Jensen and Owen were close personal friends, and that Jensen felt an obligation to help Owen with his newly acquired dealership. Jensen also testified that he didn't complain about the unpaid wages to people other than Owen because he valued his friendship with Owen and because Owen assured him that things would get better. Further, Owen asked Jensen not to discuss the monthly guarantee with others. Finally, Owen suggested that over time Jensen might become a part owner in the business. Obviously, these facts permit the drawing of more than one inference. Moreover, as previously recognized, Fremont has the applicable burden of proof with respect to the issue of intent. Murphy, 645 P.2d at 93. Therefore, it was properly left to the jury to decide which inference to utilize. Accordingly, we hold that although the evidence is conflicting, such evidence was certainly sufficient to warrant a conclusion by the jury that Jensen did not waive his contract claims. [¶ 20] Indeed, even if we were to expressly disregard Jensen's testimony, we would not find waiver. A thorough explanation of intent to waive is given in 28 Am.Jur.2d Estoppel and Waiver § 209 (2000). This section explains, mere silence is no waiver unless there is an obligation to speak, or if the silence or inaction is for so long a period as to show intention to yield a known right (footnotes omitted). We cannot point to a single instance where we have held that mere silence and delay in asserting a claim without more constitutes the unequivocal manifestation of intent required for a claim of waiver. To the contrary, we have held that simply failing to commence an action sooner does not mean that a plaintiff waives any right that he had. Flygare v. Brundage, 76 Wyo. 350, 302 P.2d 759, 764 (1956). As stated above, Jensen offered a wide range of reasons why he did not earlier commence an action against Fremont. [¶ 21] Furthermore, a portion of Jensen's claim was brought under the wage act for wages due. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-4-507 (LexisNexis 2001). In NL Indus., Inc. v. Dill, 769 P.2d 920, 925 (Wyo. 1989), we indicated that the interpretation of wage act sections must be in pari materia to synthesize the common purpose and intent regarding the collection of unpaid wages. Pursuant to § 24-4-507, [2] an employer must fully pay the wages provided by contract, and payment of any lower amount is unlawful. An employee that sues for wages upon termination and establishes in court the amount justly due is also provided with the right to eighteen percent interest, attorney fees, and all costs of suit. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-4-104(b) (LexisNexis 2001). This statute surely manifests the importance of the right to the prompt, full payment of wages. [¶ 22] Finally, other jurisdictions have held that waivers of statutory rights are not favored. Hoehne v. Sherrodd, Inc., 205 Mont. 365, 668 P.2d 232, 235 (1983); Holden & Martin Lumber Co. v. Stuart, 118 Vt. 286, 108 A.2d 387, 389 (1954); Worley v. Johnson, 60 Fla. 294, 53 So. 543, 545 (1910). Further, 28 Am.Jur.2d Estoppel and Waiver § 214 (2000) explains that statutory rights should ordinarily be waived only by clear affirmative words or actions. We have held that a person may not generally waive a statutory or constitutional right enacted for the benefit of that person if public interests are jeopardized. Taylor v. State, 612 P.2d 851, 861 (Wyo.1980). Public interests are clearly involved here. To hold that remaining at a job when not paid what you are owed waives a right to assert a statutorily given right defies common sense. A person getting less than the agreed wage should not have to affirmatively object to an employer that might fire them in order to benefit from the rights provided by the wage statute. [¶ 23] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the successful party and giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, we hold that the district court did not err in denying the motions for judgment as a matter of law. For the same reasons, we likewise hold that the district court's denial of the motion for a new trial was not an abuse of discretion. Again, there was sufficient evidence to find that there had been no waiver of claim.