Opinion ID: 6346156
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wage payment statute claims

Text: Ottemann also brought claims under both the Connecticut wage law and the Louisiana Wage Payment Statutes. The district court dismissed Ottemann’s claim under Connecticut wage law because it found that Ottemann was “not an employee under Connecticut’s wage law.” The court relied on a Connecticut trial court decision to state that non-Connecticut workers are “not afforded the protection of the Connecticut [wage payment] statute.” Kubas v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Co., 27 Conn. L. Rptr. 565, 2000 WL 1170237, at  (Conn. Super. Ct., July 19, 2000). We make no holding as to whether Ottemann is covered under Connecticut’s wage law. Rather, as both the Louisiana and Connecticut statutes purport to protect employee wages after discharge, we conclude that the district court should have addressed the antecedent question of which wage statute applies under Book IV of the Louisiana Civil Code, “Conflict of Laws.” See La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3515. This analysis was not performed by the district court. The district court also dismissed Ottemann’s Louisiana wage payment claim. Its findings regarding the Louisiana wage payment claim, though, rested on the propriety of the Order’s deductions: “Plaintiff’s commissions were always subject to offset in accordance with the express 13 Case: 21-30138 Document: 00516340925 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/02/2022 No. 21-30138 terms of the General Agent Agreement, and thus in accordance with the terms of employment.” Because we have held that Ottemann has stated plausible breach of contract claims that survive a motion to dismiss, the district court will also need to conduct a more extensive analysis of Ottemann’s Louisiana wage payment claim on remand if it finds that the Louisiana Wage Payment Statutes apply after conducting a choice of law analysis.