Page 11 - CLT122120

NEWS DECEMBER 21, 2020 ¦ 11

Department of Labor’s definition that defines the
difference between service and nonservice duties.”

Plaintiff Nettleton, a 50-year-old Madison resi-
dent and former Denny’s server, had sued the
Westbrook restaurant in 2018 for allegedly failing to
pay its servers at least the $12-an-hour state mini-
mum wage for any duties they performed, beyond
serving customers.

‘Violations on a Massive Scale’?
The law allows Connecticut restaurants to pay
servers the server minimum wage of $6.38 an hour.
But it requires the state’s $12 an hour minimum
wage when employees are performing non-service
Denny’s Restaurant in Las Vegas, Nevada.

duties, like sweeping and preparing food, because Photo: Pyon/Shutterstock.com

they’re not earning tips during those times. employers are committing violations on a massive
The lawsuit said Denny’s often failed to comply, scale. The decision makes it clear to restaurants that
and to keep proper records. if they continue to violate workers’ rights, they will
In his Dec. 11 ruling, Moukawsher sided with lose a lot more in defense costs.”
Nettleton. Petela was referring to Den-
“The evidence shows that Net- ny’s many challenges in the case,
tleton did side work. Undisputed which means they will owe his
evidence shows that Nettleton, Attorneys Rick Hayber and firm $119,807 in attorney fees.
like other employees, was required Michael Petela successfully The judge did find for Denny’s in
to clean portions of the restau- one instance: That the chain be-
rant away from the tables, prepare represented a former lieved it was acting in good faith
food, act as a cashier,” the judge Denny’s worker who sued in complying with the law. The
wrote. “The trouble is we don’t damages award to Nettleton could
for back pay.

know how long any of this took. have increased three-fold if not for
Some 24 pages of lists of side work the judge saying the chain acted in
were produced, but there was no good faith.
record of the time Nettleton or anyone else spent at Denny’s could appeal the ruling to the Connecti-
them. C&L suggests that it would be absurd to re- cut Appellate Court; it’s not clear if they will do so.
quire the segregation of a tiny amount used for this Representing C&L Diners LLC is David Golder
side work, but C&L hasn’t shown that it was a tiny with Jackson Lewis in Hartford. Golder didn’t re-
amount of time, and Nettleton lists substantial side spond to a request for comment Wednesday.
work activities she regularly performed.” In court pleadings, the defense wrote the “defen-
Moukawsher continued: “The undisputed evi- dant acted at all times with subjective good faith,
dence shows that C&L violated regulations of without intention and without actual or constructive
Connecticut state agencies #31-62-E3 and E4 by notice of there being any violation of ” the Connecti-
failing to keep required minimum wage and side cut Minimum Wage Act.
work records. The court grants Nettleton’s motion ¦

for summary judgment on these issues.” Robert Storace covers legal trends, lawsuits and
Attorney Michael Petela, who assisted his col- analysis for the Connecticut Law Tribune. Follow
league Hayber, said Wednesday: “This ruling him on Twitter @RobertSCTLaw or reach him at
is important, because we believe most of these 203-437-5950.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune