State of Maine v. Klein

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedFebruary 23, 2011
DocketCUMcv-10-327
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Klein (State of Maine v. Klein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Maine v. Klein, (Me. Super. Ct. 2011).

Opinion

(

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: CV-IO-327 ,[/

v . {

'-"'~ )

'. j ) STATE OF MAINE and MAINE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STANDARDS ORDER Plaintiffs,

v.

STEPHEN KLEIN and MERMAID TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.

Defendants

Defendant Stephen Klein moves to dismiss all claims against him in his

personal capacity. The motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

As set forth in the State's complaint, Mr. Klein is the president, treasurer,

and a director of defendant Mermaid Transportation Company, Inc. (CampI.

~I 3.) }"1ermaid employs drivers to transport its customers in passenger vans

throughout Maine and to airports located in Manchester, New Hampshire, and

Boston, Massachusetts. (CompI.

complaints from the defendants' employees about paychecks being returned for

insufficient funds. (Compl.

Mermaid would ask them not to cash their paychecks until a later date. (CampI.

91 22.) The State contacted Mr. Klein, but the problems persisted. (CompI. <[ 23.) In 2009, the State received an anonymous complaint alleging that the

defendants were withholding overtime pay from employees who were entitled

1 (

to receive it. (Compi. lj[ 24.) The State responded by auditing Mermaid's payroll

records for the periods of 2007, 2008, and 2009. (Com pI. lj[ 25.) These audits

revealed that twenty-seven employees were due overtime in the amount of

$45,392.45. (Com pI. <[ 25.) The State demanded that the defendants pay these

back wages, but the defendants have not done so. (Compi. lj[ 26.)

The Sta te filed a complaint against both Mermaid and Mr. Klein on July 7,

2010, alleging violations of Maine's wage and hour laws contained in title 26 of

the Maine Revised Statutes. Mr. Klein has moved to dismiss the claims against

him on the ground that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to hold him

individually liable as an "employer" under the statues.

DISCUSSION

On a motion to dismiss, the court examines "the complaint in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a

cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to

some legal theory." Heber v. LlIceme-ill-Maille Village Corp., 2000 ME 137, lj[ 7, 755

A.2d 1064, 1066 (quoting McAfee v. Calf, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994)). The term

"employer" is not defined in Maine's wage and hour laws. Dir. of Burean of Labor

Standards v. Connier, 527 A.2d 1297, 1299 (Me. 1987). Absent a definition, Mr.

Klein contends that Mermaid's separate corporate existence precludes him from

being an "employer" subject to the wage lavvs in this action.

This argument is not persuasive for two reasons. First, the State's

complaint docs not illlege that Mermaid employed all of the underpaid

employees. Second, the Law Court hils held that courts milY look to economic

realities underlying a situation when determining who is or is not an "employer"

under the statutes. Connier, 527 A.2d at 1299-1300. lnsteild, courts may consider

2 all relevant circumstances and balance a number of factors to reach beyond

"formalistic labels or common law notions of employment relationships." fd. at

1300. Placing substance over form "is consistent with the overall remedial nature

of the minimum wage and overtime laws." fd. The State's complaint puts Mr.

Klein on notice thJt he might held personally accountable as an employer for

failing to issue paychecks in a timely manner and failing to pay employees

overtime. The corporate form does not strictly limit who may be an "employer"

in a given situation, and dismissing the clJims against Mr. Klein at this early

phase of litigJtion would be premature.

The entry is:

DefendJnt Stephen Klein's motion to dis

3 E VIEW STATE OF MAINE ET AL VS STEPHEN KLEIN ET AL UTN:AOCSsr -2010-0068860 CASE #:PORSC-CV-2010-00327

01 0000003232 PERKINS, DAVID 30 MILK STREET PO BOX 449 PORTLAND ME 04112-0449 F MERMAID TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INC DEF RTND 07/28/2010 F STEPHEN KLEIN DEF RTND 07/28/2010

02 0000007772 WYMAN, ELIZABETH 111 SEWALL STREET 6 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA ME 04333-0006 F STATE OF MAINE PL RTND 07/07/2010 F BUREAU OF LABOR STANDARDS PL RTND 07/07/2010

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Heber v. Lucerne-In-Maine Village Corp.
2000 ME 137 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2000)
McAfee v. Cole
637 A.2d 463 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1994)
Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards v. Cormier
527 A.2d 1297 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Maine v. Klein, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-klein-mesuperct-2011.