Unpaid Wage Claims in Arizona

Background

“Arizona Revised Statutes subsection 23-353(B) requires an employer to pay an employee all wages due him no later than the regular payday for the period during which the employee terminates his employment.” (See Sanborn v. Brooker Wake Property Mgt. (1994) 178 Ariz. 425, 427; Patton v. Mohave County (1987) 154 Ariz. 168, 172.)

“An award of treble damages for unpaid wages is governed by A.R.S. section 23-355, which states: If an employer, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, shall fail to pay wages due to any employee, such employee may recover . . . an amount which is treble the amount of the unpaid wages." (See Sanborn v. Brooker Wake Property Mgt. (1994) 178 Ariz. 425, 427.)

“An employer is in violation of this chapter if it fails to pay wages due to a discharged employee within three working days [of discharge] or the end of the next regular pay period, whichever is sooner." (See id; A.R.S. subsection 23-353(A) (1983).)

“Withholding wages is forbidden unless [t]here is a reasonable good faith dispute as to the amount of wages due. . ." (See id; A.R.S. subsection 23-352(3) (1983).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“If an employer wrongfully fails to pay wages due an employee, the employee may recover treble the amount of unpaid wages due.” (See A.R.S. subsection 23-355; Patton v. Mohave County (1987) 154 Ariz. 168, 172.)

“An employer may withhold wages due an employee if there is a reasonable good-faith dispute.” (See id; A.R.S. subsection 23-352(3).)

“The treble damages provision is directed against employers who delay paying wages without reasonable justification or who try to defraud employees of rightfully-earned wages.” (See id; Apache East, Inc. v. Wiegand (1978) 119 Ariz. 308, 312, 580 P.2d 769, 773.)

“Treble damages are discretionary and should not be awarded when there is a reasonable good-faith wage dispute.” (See Patton v. Mohave County (1987) 154 Ariz. 168, 172.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“We review de novo questions of law, deferring to findings made by the relevant factfinder.” (See Mont. Ranch Homeowners Ass'n v. Beaith, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0007, at *4 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 30, 2020).)

“We review de novo dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” (See Coleman v. City of Mesa (2012) 230 Ariz. 352, 355, ¶ 7; Wasielewski v. the Kroger Co., No. 1 CA-CV 15-0697, at *3 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2017).)

“Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only if as a matter of law plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” (See id.)

“We assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts, but statements of legal conclusions without supporting factual allegations are insufficient to form a basis for relief.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “wages means nondiscretionary compensation due an employee . . . for labor or services rendered . . . whether determined by a time, task, piece, commission or other method of calculation. Wages include . . . commissions. . . .” (See Sanborn v. Brooker Wake Property Mgt. (1994) 178 Ariz. 425, 427.)

It is also well settled that “the treble damages provision is directed against employers who delay paying wages without reasonable justification.” (See Sanborn v. Brooker Wake Property Mgt. (1994) 178 Ariz. 425, 428.)