Shuntea Scarbrough v. Lynmar Holdings, LLC d/b/a The Learning Center ( 2022 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NUMBER 2021 CA 1566
SHUNTEA SCARBROUGH
VERSUS
LYNMAR HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/ A THE LEARNING CENTER
Judgment Rendered:
AUG 3 1 2022
Appealed from the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Suit Number C698963
Honorable Timothy Kelley, Presiding
James R. Bullman Counsel for Plaintiff/1St Appellant/
Brian F. Blackwell Appellee
Baton Rouge, LA Shuntea Scarbrough
Corey J. Orgeron Counsel for Defendant/ 2nd Appellant/
Prairieville, LA Appellee
Lynmar Holdings, LLC d/ b/ a The
Learning Center
BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
GUIDRY, J.
In this summary proceeding to collect unpaid wages, plaintiff, Shuntea
Scarbrough, appeals from a trial court judgment awarding her unpaid wages and
reasonable costs but denying her claim for penalty wages and attorney fees.
Defendant, Lynmar Holdings, LLC d/b/ a The Learning Center (Lynmar), also appeals
from the portion of the trial court' s judgment awarding Scarbrough reasonable costs.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Scarbrough worked for Lynmar from July 9, 2020 through July 21, 2020, as a
teacher at The Learning Center at a pay rate of $9. 50/ hour. On August 19, 2020,
Scarbrough filed a Petition for Rule to Show Cause for Unpaid Wages, alleging that
her first regular payday should have been July 24, 2020, but that after several oral
demands for payment of her wages, she had yet to receive any payment of wages for
her work at The Learning Center. Accordingly, Scarbrough sought an award of her
unpaid wages along with penalty wages pursuant to La. R.S. 23: 631 et seq. due to
Lynmar' s arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable refusal to pay the wages she was
due. Scarbrough also sought an award for costs and attorney fees.
Lynmar answered Scarbrough' s petition, generally denying her allegations, and
filed several exceptions and a reconventional demand. Particularly, Lynmar alleged
that Scarbrough abandoned her position on July 21, 2020, claiming an illness that
would keep her out of work until July 27, 2020. Lynmar alleged that Scarbrough
failed to pick up her paycheck on July 24, 2020, in accordance with company policy
and failed to return to work on July 27, 2020. After granting Scarbrough a 3 -day
grace period in accordance with company policy, Lynmar terminated Scarbrough' s
employment on July 29, 2020, and mailed her paycheck to her.
Following a trial on August 23, 2021, the trial court signed a judgment on
September 13, 2021, in favor of Scarbrough and against Lynmar in the amount of
2
428. 83, together with interest, from the date ofjudicial demand until paid. The trial
court also awarded Scarbrough reasonable costs in the amount of $1, 454. 19; however,
the trial court denied Scarbrough' s request for penalty wages and attorney fees.
Lynmar filed a motion for reconsideration on October 8, 2021, which was set for
hearing on November 22, 2021. Scarbrough filed an appeal of the trial court' s
September 13, 2021 judgment on October 15, 2021, which was granted on October
195 2021. Lynmar also filed an appeal of the trial court' s September 13, 2021
judgment on December 2, 2021, which was granted on December 3, 2021.
DISCUSSION
Penalty Wages
Louisiana Revised Statute 23: 63 1 ( A)( 1)( a) provides that upon discharge of an
employee, the employer shall " pay the amount then due under the terms of
employment ...
on or before the next regular payday or no later than fifteen days
following the date of discharge, whichever occurs first." Any employer who fails or
refuses to comply with the provisions of La. R.S. 23: 631 shall be liable to the
employee either for ninety days wages at the employee' s daily rate of pay or for full
wages from the time the employee' s demand for payment is made until the employer
shall pay or tender the amount of unpaid wages due to such employee, whichever is
the lesser amount of penalty. La. R.S. 23: 632.
Accordingly, to recover penalties under La. R.S. 23: 632, the employee must
prove that: ( 1) wages were due and owing; ( 2) demand for payment was made at the
place where the employee was customarily paid; and ( 3) the employer did not pay
after demand within the time specified by La. R.S. 23: 631. See Haber v. Ocean
Canyon Properties, Inc., 17- 1472, p. 5 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 31/ 18), 251 So. 3d 454,
458. Because La. R.S. 23: 632 is penal in nature, it must be strictly construed. Haber,
17- 1472 at p. 5, 251 So. 3d at 458.
3
Equitable defenses are available, and penalty wages are not to be absolutely
imposed. Berard v. L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace, LLC, 09- 1202, p. 14
La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 12/ 10), 35 So. 3d 334, 345, writ denied, 10- 0715 ( La. 6/ 4/ 10),
38 So. 3d 302. A good faith non -arbitrary defense to liability for unpaid wages, i.e.,
a reasonable basis for resisting liability, permits the court to excuse the employer from
the imposition of penalty wages. Chesterfield v. Genesis Hospice, L.L.C., 13- 0179,
p. 3 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 19/ 13), 137 So. 3d 22, 24. However, when an employer is
arbitrary, sets out procedural pitfalls for the employee, or is merely negligent in failing
to pay past due wages, penalty wages will be assessed. Berard, 09- 1202 at p. 14, 35
So. 3d at 345. Furthermore, reliance on an unlawful company policy does not
constitute a good faith non -arbitrary defense to liability for unpaid wages. Beard v.
Summit Institute of Pulmonary Medicine and Rehabilitation, Inc., 97- 1784 ( La.
3/ 4/ 98), 707 So. 2d 1233, 1237.
Whether there exists a valid, equitable defense to a claim of penalty wages
depends on the particular facts of each case. Berard, 09- 1202 at p. 14, 35 So. 3d at
345. A trial court' s determination of whether an employer is arbitrary or in bad faith
for purposes of imposing penalty wages is a question of fact and is, therefore, subject
to the manifest error standard of review. Loup v. Louisiana State School for the Deaf,
98- 0329, p. 6 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 19/ 99), 729 So. 2d 689, 693.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Scarbrough worked for Lynmar from
July 9, 2020 through July 21, 2020, for a total of 45. 14 hours. It is also undisputed
that Scarbrough' s rate of pay was to be $ 9. 50/ hour. Marcus Carmouche, owner of
Lynmar, testified at trial that Lynmar issued a check on July 24, 2020, for the pay
period July 5, 2020 through July 18, 2020, in the amount of $283. 63, representing
35. 83 hours worked at a rate of pay of $9. 50/ hour. Carmouche stated Lynmar had the
check available for Scarbrough to pick up from her place of employment, but she
failed to retrieve the check on the scheduled payday. Carmouche stated when
4
Scarbrough failed to retrieve her check and failed to return to work, Lynmar waited
for three days and then released her from her employment on July 30, 2020.
Carmouche further stated that Lynmar issued another check representing the total
45. 14 hours worked, but at a rate of pay of $7. 25/ hour, on July 31, 2020, by mailing
the check to Scarbrough at her address on file. Carmouche stated that Lynmar reduced
Scarbrough' s rate of pay to $ 7. 25/ hour per company policy, which provides that
Lynmar will reduce wages to minimum wage in the event an employee does not give
a full two-week notice prior to resignation. Carmouche further stated Lynmar advised
Scarbrough that her check was in the mail when Scarbrough inquired about it, and the
next time he heard from Scarbrough was when he was served with her petition.
Carmouche stated that he reached out to Scarbrough' s counsel, informing him that
Lynmar had mailed a check to Scarbrough a week after it issued the first check, and
offered to bring a new one to counsel' s office; however, such offer was refused.
Scarbrough also testified at trial, stating that she was never paid for her hours
worked and that she was never given a check, through the mail or otherwise.
Scarbrough stated that she was unaware that the scheduled payday was July 24, 2020,
and that she attempted to contact Lynmar on July 31, 2020, to inquire about her
employment and about obtaining her paycheck. According to Scarbrough, she went
to Lynmar on that date and knocked on the door and called Lynmar, but no one
answered the door or the phone. Scarbrough stated that she did not speak with anyone
at Lynmar until she called on August 11, 2020, and spoke with an employee named
Charlotte" inquiring about where her paycheck was and if it needed to be picked up
or if it was mailed to her. Scarbrough stated that " Charlotte" told her the check had
been mailed and that she should have received it. When Scarbrough told her she had
not received it, " Charlotte" told Scarbrough to call back at 10: 00 a. m. and speak to
Lynn, one of the owners of Lynmar. Scarbrough subsequently spoke with Lynn,
inquiring about her check, and Lynn told her it had been mailed; however, Lynn was
5
unable to offer any proof of mailing. Scarbrough had no further contact with anyone
from Lynmar after August 11, 2020.
In denying Scarbrough' s request for penalty wages, the trial court found that
tendering a check for less than $ 9. 50/ hour for the hours worked was not a proper
tender, but because Lynmar originally wrote a check for the full amount, which it
made available for Scarbrough to retrieve from its office, and continued to attempt to
mail and/ or deliver a check to Scarbrough, albeit for a reduced amount, Lynmar was
not in bad faith. In particular, the trial court found that Lynmar relied on its policy to
reduce Scarbrough' s wages, which policy the trial court acknowledged is contrary to
law. However, considering Lynmar' s continuous attempts to pay Scarbrough her
wages, the trial court found that Lynmar' s failure to pay was not malicious.
From our review of the record and the law applicable to this case, we find that
the trial court committed error in denying an award of penalty wages. The record
clearly establishes that wages were due and owing, that Scarbrough made a demand
for payment by calling Lynmar and inquiring about her paycheck, and Lynmar did
not pay after demand within the time specified by La. R. S. 23: 631. Furthermore,
Lynmar may have made available a check for the correct amount of wages then due
on July 24, 2020, but when Scarbrough did not return to obtain her check, it elected
to re -issue the check for the total number of hours worked at a reduced wage amount.
It is this reduced amount that Lynmar attempted to pay on several occasions, first by
mail and then by delivery to Scarbrough' s counsel.
Accordingly, while equitable defenses are available to mitigate against the
imposition of penalties, it is well- settled in the law that reliance on an unlawful
company policy does not constitute a good faith, non -arbitrary defense to liability for
unpaid wages. As such, while Lynmar may have made multiple attempts to pay
Scarbrough after her termination, Lynmar ultimately failed to pay Scarbrough the
agreed wage to which she was entitled, and its reliance on an illegal company policy,
M
whether innocent or not, is insufficient to establish an equitable defense to the
imposition of penalty wages.
Attorney Fees
Louisiana Revised Statute 23: 632( C) states:
Reasonable attorney fees shall be allowed the laborer or employee by the
court which shall be taxed as costs to be paid by the employer, in the
event a well- founded suit for any unpaid wages whatsoever be filed by
the laborer or employee after three days shall have elapsed from time of
making the first demand following discharge or resignation.
The award of reasonable attorney fees is mandatory when an employee brings
a " well- founded" suit for unpaid wages, irrespective of any equitable defenses that
may be raised by the employer. Haber, 17- 1472 at pp. 8- 9, 251 So. 3d at 460. A suit
is considered " well- founded" when the employee brings a successful suit and recovers
unpaid wages. Cleary v. LEC Unwired, L.L.C., 00- 2532, pp. 9- 10 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
12/ 28/ 01), 804 So. 2d 916, 923.
In the instant case, the trial court awarded Scarbrough wages in the amount of
428. 83, yet failed to award her attorney fees. In so ruling, the trial court seemingly
found that Scarbrough was not entitled to attorney fees because Lynmar was not in
bad faith. However, as noted above, equitable defenses have no application in the
determination of whether attorney fees should be awarded. Rather, attorney fees are
mandatory if the employee brings a successful suit and recovers unpaid wages.
Therefore, the trial court clearly erred in failing to award Scarbrough reasonable
attorney fees.'
Award of Court Costs
In Lynmar' s appeal, it contends that the trial court erred in awarding court costs
to Scarbrough after finding that Lynmar acted in good faith. Pursuant to La. C. C. P.
art. 1920, a trial judge has great discretion in awarding costs. While the general rule
1 We note that reasonable attorney fees are to be awarded in the event that the employee files a well-
founded suit for unpaid wages, even if penalty wages are not due. Cleary, 00- 2532 at p. 10, 804 So.
2d at 923.
7
is that the party cast in judgment should be assessed with court costs, the trial court
may assess costs in any equitable manner and against any party in any proportion it
deems just, even against the party prevailing on the merits. See La. C. C. P. art. 1920;
St. James Behavioral Health Hospital, Inc. v. Gopalam, 16- 0170, p. 4 ( La. App. 1st
Cir. 7/ 28/ 16), 199 So. 3d 639, 642, writ denied, 16- 1696 ( La. 1/ 9/ 17), 214 So. 3d 864.
In the instant case, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Scarbrough and
against Lynmar for the amount of wages owed. Because Ms. Scarbrough was the
prevailing party, even though on only a portion of her claim, we do not find that the
trial court abused its discretion in ordering Lynmar to pay reasonable costs in the
amount of $1, 454. 19, together with interest thereon, at the legal rate from the date of
rendition of the judgment until paid.2
Motion to Strike and For Sanctions
Scarbrough filed a motion to strike and for sanctions in this court based upon
statements made by counsel for Lynmar in its appellate brief, which Scarbrough
alleges violate Rule 2- 12. 2( C) of the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal.
Particularly, Scarbrough asserts that counsel for Lynmar stated, in his appellate brief,
that Scarbrough' s counsel " attempted to extort additional funds from [ Lynmar' s
designated representative] to which [ petitioner in reconvention] refused to pay" and
that " Ms. Scarbrough conspired with her attorney to create the illusion of [Lynmar' s]
refusal to pay her final wages."
Rule 2- 12. 2( C) prohibits language in briefs that includes the use of vile,
obscene, obnoxious, or offensive expressions, and insulting, abusive, discourteous, or
irrelevant matter or criticism of any person, class of persons or association of persons,
or any court, or judge or other officer thereof, or of any institution. Brumfield v.
Village of Tangipahoa, 21- 0082, p. 14 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 20/ 21), 340 So. 3d 221,
2 Lynmar does not contest on appeal the amount of costs awarded by the trial court.
233. Any violation of this prohibition shall subject the author, or authors, of the brief
to punishment for contempt of court and to having such brief returned. URCA Rule
2- 12. 2( C). However, Rule 2- 12. 2( C) does not provide for the imposition of sanctions.
Brumfield, 21- 0082 at p. 14, 340 So. 3d at 233.
Regarding the requirements for filing motions in the appellate court, URCA-
Rule 2- 7- 2 provides that all written motions filed in an appellate court, in addition to
the formatting, layout, and service requirements, must include a proposed order. In
filing her motion to strike and for sanctions, Scarbrough failed to attach or otherwise
include a proposed order. As such, we find her motion fails to comply with URCA
Rule 2- 7. 2. However, on our own motion, we order that the references in Lynmar' s
appellant brief and appellee brief, accusing Scarbrough of conspiring with her
attorney and accusing Scarbrough' s counsel of extortion, be stricken. See In re
Ewing, 34, 413, p. 9 ( La. App. 2nd Cir. 3/ 2/ 01), 781 So. 2d 885, 892 ( appellate court
raised issue of violation of Rule 2. 12. 4 on its own motion); Simon v. Macro, Inc., 09-
346 ( La. App. 3rd Cir. 10/ 7/ 09), 2009WL3200628 * 6 ( unpublished opinion), writ
denied, 09- 2765 ( La. 2/ 26/ 10), 28 So. 3d 278 ( court declined to return the appellate
briefs or hold the authors in contempt and instead ordered that the offensive portions
of the briefs be stricken).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse those portions of the trial court' s
judgment denying Scarbrough' s request for penalty wages and attorney fees and
remand this matter to the trial court for the determination of the amount of penalty
wages owed and the amount of attorney fees. The trial court' s judgment is affirmed
in all other respects. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Lynmar Holdings, LLC
d/ b/ a The Learning Center.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
0