Peters v. Early Healthcare Giver, Inc.

MURIEL PETERS v. EARLY HEALTHCARE GIVER, INC.

No. 86

COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

Argued: April 29, 2014

September Term, 2013

August 13, 2014

MD. CODE (1991, 2008 REPL. VOL., 2013 CUM. SUPP.), TITLE 3 OF THE LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ARTICLE — INCLUSION OF OVERTIME WAGES IN THE DEFINITION OF WAGES: Overtime wages are included within the statutory definition of wages, and are thus recoverable under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

MD. CODE (1991, 2008 REPL. VOL., 2013 CUM. SUPP.), § 3-507.2 OF THE LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ARTICLE — RECOVERY OF UNPAID WAGES — REQUIRED FINDING REGARDING WITHHOLDING OF WAGES PURSUANT TO A BONA FIDE DISPUTE: When a finder of fact determines that an employee is owed withheld wages under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, it is required to make an explicit determination as to whether those wages were withheld by the employer pursuant to a bona fide dispute, before determining whether to grant enhanced damages.

MD. CODE (1991, 2008 REPL. VOL., 2013 CUM. SUPP.), § 3-507.2 OF THE LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ARTICLE — NO PRESUMPTION OF TREBLE DAMAGES WHEN WAGES WITHHELD PURSUANT TO BONA FIDE DISPUTE: An employee is not presumptively entitled to an award of enhanced damages under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, even if a finder of fact determines that an employer withheld wages not pursuant to a bona fide dispute.

MD. CODE (1991, 2008 REPL. VOL., 2013 CUM. SUPP.), § 3-507.2 OF THE LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ARTICLE — CALCULATION OF TREBLE DAMAGES: The plain language of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law shows that the total award available to an employee is three times the withheld wage. Thus, enhanced damages are not added to the award of withheld wage.

Circuit Court for Montgomery County

Case No. 331908

Barbera, C.J., Harrell Battaglia Greene Adkins McDonald Watts, JJ.

Opinion by Adkins, J.

In this case we are asked to answer three questions concerning the Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL"), Md. Code (1991, 2008 Repl. Vol., 2013 Cum. Supp.), § 3-501 et seq. of the Labor and Employment Article ("LE"), a cause of action frequently litigated in the appellate courts. In answering these questions we are treading new ground on some, but not all of them.

FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Appellant Muriel Peters worked as a certified nursing assistant for Early Healthcare Giver, Inc. ("EHCG") from April 2008 to April 2009. Peters provided in-home care for an elderly patient throughout her employment with EHCG. She consistently worked 119 hours in every two-week pay period. EHCG paid Peters $12 per hour for all of her work, including the hours she worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Following her departure from EHCG, Peters sued EHCG in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, claiming that EHCG wrongfully withheld her overtime wages. At trial, EHCG's President, Esther Guy, conceded that she did not pay Peters overtime. Guy explained that she did not think that Peters was owed overtime because Peters exercised during work hours. Regarding the nature of Peters's employment, Guy explained that Peters was paid under a federal program under which Medicaid would pay EHCG $16 per hour under the contract—EHCG would pay Peters $12 per hour and EHCG kept $4. See Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395k(a)(2)(A) (2012). EHCG's counsel argued that because the company operated under a federal program, federal law governed EHCG's payment of home healthcare workers. Under that theory, Peters's work fell under the FairLabor Standards Act's (the "FLSA") "companionship services" exemption label,¹ thus, she was not entitled to overtime pay. See 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(15). The trial court denied Peters's claim for overtime wages. Though the court rejected Guy's claim that overtime was withheld because Peters exercised at work, the court explained that federal law preempted Maryland law, and exempted the employer from paying overtime.

Peters appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. The intermediate appellate court held that the trial court erred in concluding that federal law preempted state wage laws.² Because the Court of Special Appeals held that the FLSA exemption did not apply, the case was remanded "for the [trial] court to consider whether Peters is entitled to recover [overtime wages] under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law as well as other issues raised in her complaint."

On remand to the Circuit Court, Peters filed an unopposed memorandum asserting a claim under the Wage and Hour Law ("WHL") and the WPCL, requesting unpaid overtime and treble damages under LE § 3-507.2(b).³ She did not offer any additionalevidence. On March 28, 2013, the Circuit Court awarded Peters $6,201 in unpaid overtime wages, but denied her request for enhanced damages.

Peters appealed the order to the Court of Special Appeals and filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to this Court. Before the Court of Special Appeals could hear the case, we granted Peters's petition to consider the following questions, which we have rephrased for clarity:

1. Are overtime wages recoverable under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law?

2. Is it an abuse of discretion for a trier of fact to fail to award enhanced damages under § 3-507.2(b) of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law when there is no claim of a bona fide dispute?

3. Should any award of up to treble damages under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law be made in addition to the award of unpaid wages?

For the following reasons, we answer the first question in the affirmative and answer the second and third in the negative. Yet, because the trial court failed to make a required predicate finding, and there was no evidence to support a finding of a bona fide dispute, we remand this case for further proceedings.

DISCUSSION

Overtime Wages Under The Wage Payment And Collection Law

Maryland has two wage enforcement laws relevant to this case: the WHL and the WPCL. The WHL aims to protect Maryland workers by providing a minimum wagestandard. See LE § 3-402. The WPCL requires an employer to pay its employees regularly while employed, and in full at the termination of employment. LE §§ 3-502, 3-505. Read together, these statutes allow employees to recover unlawfully withheld wages from their employer, and provide an employee with two avenues to do so. Battaglia v. Clinical Perfusionists, Inc., 338 Md. 352, 364, 658 A.2d 680, 686 (1995) (the WPCL's "principal purpose was to provide a vehicle for employees to collect, and an incentive for employers to pay, back wages.").

Both Peters and the Commissioner of Labor and Industry (the "Commissioner"), appearing as amicus curiae,⁴ argue that this Court has already resolved whether overtime pay is recoverable under the WPCL. Peters relies on our decision in Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. 501, 819 A.2d 354 (2003) ("Friolo I") to support her argument that the WPCL not only concerns the timing of payments, but any dispute over entitlement of wages. In Friolo I, we explicitly held that an employee "was entitled to sue under [the WHL and the WPCL] to recover any overtime pay that remained due after termination of her employment." 373 Md. at 515, 819 A.2d at 362. Peters also claims that because this Court applies the WPCL's "bona fide dispute" provision to all disputes generally regarding an employee's entitlement to wages, the statute cannot possibly be interpreted to affect violations of time only. See LE § 3-507.2(b); see Ocean City, Md., Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Barufaldi, 434 Md. 381, 400, 75 A.3d 952, 963 (2013) (analyzing a bona fide dispute under the WPCL to mean "[a dispute] as to the plaintiff's entitlement to the withheld wages[.]").

This Court recently addressed the WPCL's scope in Marshall v. Safeway, Inc., where we repeated our rejection of a narrow reading of the WPCL that would exclude coverage for overtime claims. 437 Md. 542, 562, 88 A.3d 735, 746 (2014). We were called upon to do so in the face of federal court decisions that continued to restrict its application to regular wages.⁵ These decisions were hard to understand in light of a 2010 amendment to the WPCL enacted specifically to clarify any doubt about the intended scope of the statute.⁶ We echo, hopefully for the final time, that both the WHL and the WPCL are vehicles for recovering overtime wages.⁷ Without a doubt, Peters has a right to bringa private cause of action under the WPCL to recover any unlawfully withheld overtime wages.

Challenges To The Trial Court's Refusal To Grant Enhanced Damages

Appellant argues that she was wrongfully denied treble damages under the WPCL. She presents three interrelated arguments that the court's order was erroneous. First, she claims that the court erred when it failed to make an explicit finding regarding whether EHCG withheld overtime wages as a result of a bona fide dispute. Second, Appellant urges that the court could not have reasonably concluded that EHCG withheld the wages as a result of a bona fide dispute. Finally, she avers that the court abused its discretion by declining to award her treble damages. Because of this error, Appellant requests that we remand this case to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County with instructions that she be awarded the full amount of treble damages under the WPCL. We address each of these arguments in turn.

A brief review of the prior appeal in this case and the proceedings on remand is helpful to our discussion. In the prior appeal, the Court of Special Appeals held that EHCG's federal preemption defense was legally incorrect and remanded this case for the Circuit Court to determine whether Peters could recover under the WHL and WPCL. Back at the trial court, Appellant insisted that no trial or further evidentiary hearing was necessary and EHCG did not appear. The Circuit Court requested a memorandum of law from Peters regarding the propriety and the amount of damages under the WHL and WPCL, and...