Skip to main content

THE AMERICAN INSTITUE FOR CHARTERED PROPERTY CASUALTY UNDERWRITERS v. POSNER

E.D. Pa.June 25, 2024No. 2:19-cv-05369
Mixed ResultThe American Institute for Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters$48,830.45 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Other Statutes: Other Statutory Actions
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
jury verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage TheftBreach of Contract

Outcome

Employee Posner prevailed on her WPCL (wage payment) and breach of contract claims for unpaid commissions, receiving $48,830.45 in damages (reduced to $38,399.89 compensatory and $9,599.96 liquidated damages after JNOV). Employer AICPCU prevailed on its breach of confidentiality agreement claim with nominal damages. Court granted Posner's motion for attorneys' fees and costs in part.

What This Ruling Means

Posner v. The American Institute for Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters

What Happened

Employee Posner sued her former employer, the American Institute for Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters, claiming the company failed to pay her earned commissions. She also alleged the employer broke their employment contract. In turn, the company claimed Posner violated a confidentiality agreement.

What the Court Decided

The court sided mainly with Posner. She won her claims for unpaid wages and contract breach, receiving approximately $48,830 in damages. However, the employer won its confidentiality claim but received only minimal payment. The judge also ordered the company to pay part of Posner's legal fees and court costs.

Why This Matters for Workers

This case reinforces that employers must pay employees all promised compensation, including commissions. Workers who aren't paid what they've earned have legal options. The court's decision to require the employer to cover some legal fees is significant—it means workers can pursue justice without bearing the entire financial burden themselves, making it more practical to fight wage theft.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.