Reuther v. Southern Beverage Co.
This text of 520 So. 2d 443 (Reuther v. Southern Beverage Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is an appeal by defendant, Southern Beverage Company, Inc., from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, Brian R. Reuther, awarding to plaintiff unpaid wages in the amount of $630.00, together with penalty wages in the amount of $6,300.00, plus attorney fees of 25% of the entire amount of the judgment, and costs.
We affirm.
This suit was brought for unpaid wages due as vacation pay, penalty wages and attorney fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:631 and 23:632
[444]*444The evidence shows that at the time of termination Reuther had earned nine days vacation (computed at $70.00 per day) for which defendant had refused to pay him. The employment records supported the employee's claim. The wages (vacation pay2) due Reuther were not paid within three days following his termination, as required by La. R.S. 23:631. The employee made proper demand for payment following termination. The evidence further reflects, as found by the trial judge, that the employer was arbitrary in refusing to pay plaintiff the vacation pay due him.
Under La.R.S. 23:631 plaintiff was entitled to the $630.00 awarded him for unpaid wages due as vacation pay. The evidence supports this award. The trial judge held that “Mr. Reuther’s [sic] made out a case for entitlement to the nine days vacation for which he’s not been paid.” We agree.
It is only “a good-faith non-arbitrary defense to liability for unpaid wages, i.e., a reasonable basis for resisting liability” which will permit the courts to excuse the employer from the imposition of penalty wages. Soday v. Mall Snacks, Inc., 374 So.2d 138 (La.App. 1 Cir.1979).
We believe the evidence clearly establishes that the amount of vacation due Mr. Reuther was not in dispute. The evidence establishes that Reuther’s services with the defendant were terminated on May 29, 1985, and that at that time the employee had earned nine days vacation for which he had not been paid, the sum of $630.00, calculated at $70.00 per day for nine days. This amount could easily be figured from the records kept by the employer. Under these circumstances it was arbitrary for the employer to withhold payment of Mr. Reuther’s earned wages (vacation pay). It is only a “good faith” or “non-arbitrary” defense to liability for unpaid wages, that is, a reasonable basis for resisting liability, which will permit the courts to excuse an employer from the imposition of penalty wages. Alexander v. Brown Builders, Inc., 490 So.2d 653 (La.App. 2 Cir.1986). There was no reasonable basis for resisting liability in this case.
Under La. R.S. 23:632, mandatory reasonable attorney fees are to be awarded in the event of a well-founded suit for unpaid wages. Carriere v. Pee Wee’s Equipment Company, 364 So.2d 555 (La.1978). Since the lower court found that the employee was entitled to the sued-for vacation pay, with which finding we agree, the suit was well-founded; thus, the plaintiff is entitled to the attorney fees awarded. See [445]*445Green v. Interstate Properties, Inc., 458 So.2d 546 (La.App. 4 Cir.1984).
After reviewing the record, we cannot say that the trial court was clearly wrong in finding that the defendant owed plaintiff unpaid wages (vacation pay), as well as penalty wages, for his arbitrary refusal to pay these wages. The suit was well-founded, so the attorney fee award was mandated.
For the assigned reasons, the judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed at defendant’s costs.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
520 So. 2d 443, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 1761, 1988 WL 13808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reuther-v-southern-beverage-co-lactapp-1988.