Our clients were employed by Seale & Ross as associate attorneys, until they resigned at the end of 2016. Our clients alleged they were owed “settle up” payments, which is the difference between collections from their expected production and their actual production for work performed on certain files.
The former law firm employer took the following positions: 1) the production bonus wages were discretionary based on the attorney compensation system and handbook, and 2) that because the attorneys resigned prior to the end of year, they were not owed the production bonuses, which were paid in January of the following year.
A salary, or “wage,” as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Ed. ( 2019), is Payment for labor or services, [usually] based on time worked or quantity produced; [specifically], compensation of an employee based on time worked or output of production.” (Emphasis added). As in Williams, we conclude the production bonus in the instant case is based on actual work performed by the plaintiffs, making it a non-discretionary wage.
DiVittorio, et al. v. Seale & Ross, PLC, 2022-0392 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/27/22)
Likewise, the trial court and appellate court rejected the argument that the bonus wages that were typically payed in January of the following year, after our clients resigned, were not still owed. After all, the bonus wages were for work that was performed by our clients during their employment.
Despite the timing of the payment, the production bonus wages in question related to the work done by the plaintiffs…up until their resignations.
Accordingly, the appellate court properly affirmed the trial courts verdict awarding all costs, penalties, attorney fees, and judicial interest as called for under the law.
Publication on the decision can be found here, and the trial court judgment can be found here:
If you have any question or would like to discuss, please email us at [email protected] or fill out our form under “contact us.”