Wage Theft Cases

Robert George & others vs. National Water Main Cleaning Company & others. Suffolk. February 14, 2017. June 26, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. Supreme Judicial Court, Certification of questions of law. Massachusetts Wage Act. Labor, Wages, Failure to pay wages. Damages. Damages, Interest. Interest. Judgment, Interest. Practice, Civil, Interest, Judgment, Damages. This court concluded that under Massachusetts law, statutory prejudgment interest pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 6H, is to be added by the clerk of court to the amount of lost wages and other benefits awarded as damages on judgments pursuant to the Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, § 150, but is not to be added to the additional amount of the award arising from the trebling of those damages as liquidated damages. [372-381] Certification of a question of law to the Supreme Judicial Court by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Adam J. Shafran (Jonathon D. Friedmann also present) for the plaintiffs. Richard L. Alfred (Dawn Reddy Solowey & Anne S. Bider also present) for the defendants. John Pagliaro & Martin J. Newhouse, for New England Legal Foundation, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Annette Gonthier Kiely, Kathy Jo Cook, Thomas R. Murphy, & Timothy J. Wilton, for Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Michael Curvin, Mark Bassett, Kevin Colvin, Justin Kordas, Caitos Villarreal, Paul Dockett, Jon Eldridge, Chris Myers, Zef Zeka, Paul LeDoux, Erik Paiva, Jeffrey David, and Chris Mirisola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Carylon Corporation, Dennis Sullivan, Antonino LaFrancesca, and Carl Cummings. Gants, C.J. Several employees of National Water Main Cleaning Company filed a class action suit against the company and its parent company, Carylon Corporation, in the Superior Court, alleging, among other claims, nonpayment of wages in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, §§ 148, 150 (Wage Act). After the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the judge granted final approval of a class settlement agreement that resolved all outstanding issues except one question of law. To resolve that question, the judge certified to this court the following question pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as appearing in 382 Mass. 700 (1981): “Is statutory interest pursuant to [G. L. c. 231, § 6B or 6C,] available under Massachusetts law when liquidated (treble) damages are awarded pursuant to [G. L. c. 149, § 150]?” In answer to the question, we declare that, under Massachusetts law, statutory prejudgment interest pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 6H, shall be added by the clerk of court to the amount of lost wages and other benefits awarded as damages pursuant to G. L. c. 149, § 150, but shall not be added to the additional amount of the award arising from the trebling of those damages as liquidated damages. Interpretation of the certified question. Before we answer the certified question, which the judge issued at the joint request of the parties, we must first ascertain its meaning. The question is an inquiry into the availability of statutory interest pursuant to two statutes: G. L. c. 231, § 6B, which directs the clerk of court to add interest at the rate of twelve per cent per year to awards of judgment “for personal injuries to the plaintiff or for . . . damage to property”; and G. L. c. 231, § 6C, which directs the clerk to add interest at the same twelve per cent rate to awards of judgment “[i]n all actions based on contractual obligations.” The parties appear to treat the certified question essentially as two questions: first, whether Wage Act claims fall within the scope of either § 6B or § 6C, and second, if they do, whether prejudgment interest should be added to the award of damages for lost wages and other benefits where § 150, as amended in 2008, provides for the trebling of those damages and characterizes such an award as “liquidated damages.” We decline to answer the first of these questions because, even if prejudgment interest could not be added to Wage Act awards under § 6B or § 6C, it plainly could be added under G. L. c. 231, § 6H, which declares that interest at the rate of twelve per cent per year shall be added to the award of damages ‘“[i]n any action in which damages are awarded, but in which interest on said damages is not otherwise provided by law.” The question we shall answer, which we consider to be the true gist of the certified question, is whether the Legislature, when it amended § 150 in 2008 to require the award of treble damages on Wage Act judgments and characterized the award as ‘“liquidated damages,” intended that prejudgment interest not be added to any part of this award because such interest was included within the scope of ‘“liquidated damages.” See Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 464 Mass. 492, 499 n.12 (2013) (declining to limit answer to narrow confines of certified question where broader discussion was necessary to articulate law regarding issue presented). Discussion. The Wage Act was enacted ‘“to protect wage earners from the long-term detention of wages by unscrupulous employers.” Melia v. Zenhire, Inc., 462 Mass. 164, 170 (2012), quoting Cumpata v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., 113 F. Supp. 2d 164, 167 (D. Mass. 2000). Employers violate the Wage Act when they fail to pay ‘“each . . . employee the wages earned” and when they fail to do so within the time period set by statute. See G. L. c. 149, § 148. Before the 2008 amendment, G. L. c. 149, § 150, provided that an aggrieved employee may initiate ‘“a civil action for . . . any damages incurred, including treble damages for any loss of wages and other benefits” and, if he or she prevails, ‘“shall be entitled to an award of the costs of the litigation and reasonable attorney fees.” St. 2005, c. 99, § 2. In Wiedmann v. The Bradford Group, Inc., 444 Mass. 698, 709 (2005), we noted that the text of this statute ‘“states only that a plaintiff ‘may’ institute a suit for damages that includes a request for treble damages,” and concluded that “there is nothing in the plain language of the statute that requires an award of treble damages.” We declined to require a judge to award treble damages to a prevailing plaintiff where the plain language of § 150 did not require it, and declared that the award of treble damages in Wage Act cases was a decision left to the discretion of the judge. Id. at 710. This conclusion was similar to the conclusion we reached in Goodrow v. Lane Bryant, Inc., 432 Mass. 165, 178-179 (2000), where we rejected the argument that the award of treble damages was mandatory once a plaintiff requested such an award for an employer’s failure to pay required overtime compensation, in violation of G. L. c. 151, § IB. Wiedmann, supra. We noted that we had declared in Goodrow that “treble damages are punitive in nature, allowed only where authorized by statute, and appropriate where conduct is ‘outrageous, because of the defendant’s evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others.’ ” Wiedmann, supra, quoting Goodrow, supra at 178. Three years after we decided Wiedmann, the Legislature “effected a critical change in the language of the statute, removing the provision that treble damages ‘may’ be awarded, and replacing it with the directive that treble damages ‘shall be awarded.’ ” Rosnov v. Molloy, 460 Mass. 474, 479 (2011). Under G. L. c. 149, § 150, as amended through St. 2008, c. 80, § 5, where an aggrieved employee prevails in a civil action seeking damages under the Wage Act, the employee “shall be awarded treble damages, as liquidated damages, for any lost wages and other benefits and shall also be awarded the costs of the litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees.” By its plain language, the 2008 amendment to § 150 mandates the award of treble damages for lost wages and benefits once an aggrieved employee prevails on a Wage Act claim; the plaintiff no longer need show that the defendant’s conduct was “outrageous” to obtain such an award. The 2008 amendment did more than mandate the award of treble damages to a prevailing plaintiff in a Wage Act case; it characterized the treble damages “as liquidated damages.” The crux of this appeal is to ascertain what the Legislature intended by this characterization. The defendants contend that the inclusion of this phrase reflects the intent of the Legislature that, apart from the award of reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs of lihgation, the judgment in favor of a prevailing plaintiff shall be limited to three times the amount of lost wages and benefits; it shall not include any prejudgment interest, whether under § 6B, 6C, or 6H, because prejudgment interest is included within the award of liquidated damages. The plaintiff contends that the inclusion of this phrase reflects the intent of the Legislature that treble damages be treated as compensatory in nature, rather than punitive, and does not reflect an intent to deprive employees of prejudgment interest they would otherwise be due as a matter of statute for their lost wages and benefits. “Liquidated damages” is a term derived from contract law to identify the amount of damages that the parties agree must be paid in the event of a breach. See Cochrane v. Forbes, 267 Mass. 417, 420 (1929) (“Liquidated damages ... mean damages, agreed upon as to amount by the parties, or fixed by operation of law, or under the correct applicable principles of law made certain in amount by the terms of the contract, or susceptible of being made certain in amount by mathematical calculations ...”). See also 24 R.A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 65:1 (4th ed. 2002). “A liquidated damages provision will usually be enforced, provided two criteria are satisfied: first, that at the time of contracting the actual damages flowing from a breach were difficult to ascertain; and second, that the sum agreed on as liquidated damages represents a ‘reasonable forecast of damages expected to occur in the event of a breach.’ ” NPS, LLC v. Minihane, 451 Mass. 417, 420 (2008), quoting Cummings Props., LLC v. National Communications Corp., 449 Mass. 490, 494 (2007). “Where damages are easily ascertainable, and the amount provided for is grossly disproportionate to actual damages or unconscionably excessive, the court will award the aggrieved party no more than its actual damages.” NPS, LLC, supra. The term is used in the damages provision of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), which provides, “Any employer who violates the provisions of [§ 206 or 207] of this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.” The United States Supreme Court has declared that liquidated damages under the FLSA “are compensation, not a penalty or punishment by the [g]overnment.” Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572, 583 (1942). “The retention of a workman’s pay may well result in damages too obscure and difficult of proof for estimate other than by liquidated damages.” Id. at 583-584. Liquidated damages under the FLSA “constitute[ ] a Congressional recognition that failure to pay the statutory minimum on time may be so detrimental to maintenance of the minimum standard of living ‘necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being of workers’ and to the free flow of commerce, that double payment must be made in the event of delay in order to insure restoration of the worker to that minimum standard of well-being” (footnote omitted). Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 707 (1945). Although the legislative history is silent regarding the Legislature’s purpose in characterizing treble damages as “liquidated damages” in the 2008 amendment to the Wage Act, we infer that the Legislature knew that • the FLSA had characterized the “additional equal amount” of unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation as “liquidated damages”; • the United States Supreme Court had regarded liquidated damages as compensatory in nature rather than punitive; and • the characterization of treble damages as “liquidated damages” could be used to defend an award of treble damages from the constitutional challenge that such an award was punitive in nature and therefore required a finding that the employer’s conduct had been “outrageous.” See Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp., 699 F.3d 129, 140 (1st Cir. 2012) (defendant employer’s argument that treble damages under Wage Act violate due process in absence of finding of employer “reprehensibility” was “misplaced” because, “[b]y definition, . . . liquidated damages are not punitive damages”). The defendants contend that we should make one further inference: that, by characterizing treble damages as “liquidated damages” under the Wage Act, the Legislature intended to adopt Federal law and preclude a plaintiff from receiving any prejudgment interest on the award, including the award of lost wages and benefits. We conclude that this is one inference too far. We recognize that the Supreme Court has declared that Congress, by providing an award of liquidated damages under the FLSA, “meant to preclude recovery of interest on minimum wages and liquidated damages.” Brooklyn Sav. Bank, 324 U.S. at 715-716. The Court described “liquidated damages” as “compensation for delay in payment of sums due under the [FLSA].” Id. at 715. Consequently, according to the Court: “Since Congress has seen fit to fix the sums recoverable for delay, it is inconsistent with Congressional intent to grant recovery of interest on such sums in view of the fact that interest is customarily allowed as compensation for delay in payment. To allow an employee to recover the basic statutory wage and liquidated damages, with interest, would have the effect of giving an employee double compensation for damages arising from delay in the payment of the basic minimum wages. . . . Allowance of interest on minimum wages and liquidated damages recoverable under § 16 (b) tends to produce the undesirable result of allowing interest on interest.” (Citation omitted.) Id. We are not persuaded that the Legislature shared the Congressional intent in this regard. When the FLSA was enacted, there was no Federal statute generally mandating the payment of prejudgment interest. See Milwaukee v. Cement Div., Nat. Gypsum Co., 515 U.S. 189, 194 (1995). The payment of prejudgment interest in Federal court, in the absence of a statute regarding prejudgment interest, “is governed by traditional judge-made principles.” Id, In contrast, as noted earlier, the payment of prejudgment interest in a Massachusetts court is governed by statute, either G. L. c. 231, § 6B, 6C, or 6H. The enactment of § 6H, St. 1983, c. 652, § 1, mandating the payment of prejudgment interest where ‘“not otherwise provided by law,” reflects the Legislature’s intent that prejudgment interest always be added to an award of compensatory damages. Where § 6H provides for the award of prejudgment interest whenever compensatory damages are awarded, an interpretation of § 150, as amended, that would preclude the payment of prejudgment interest on the award of lost wages and benefits under the Wage Act would be an implied repeal of § 6H with respect to Wage Act awards. Under our ‘“long standing rule of statutory interpretation,” the implied repeal of a statute by a subsequent statute has “never been favored by our law.” Commonwealth v. Hayes, 372 Mass. 505, 511 (1977), quoting Commonwealth v. Bloomberg, 302 Mass. 349, 352 (1939). Where two statutes appear to be in conflict, we do not mechanically determine “that the more ‘recent’ or more ‘specific’ statute .. . trumps the other.” Commonwealth v. Harris, 443 Mass. 714, 725 (2005). Instead, we “endeavor to harmonize the two statutes so that the policies underlying both may be honored.” Id, “[A] statute is not to be deemed to repeal or supersede a prior statute in whole or in part in the absence of express words to that effect or of clear implication.” Id., quoting Hayes, supra at 512. Repeal is not clearly implied “[ujnless the prior statute is so repugnant to and inconsistent with the later enactment that both cannot stand.” Hayes, supra at 511. Here, amended § 150 is in conflict with § 6H only if we conclude that the Legislature intended the trebled “liquidated damages” to incorporate all prejudgment interest. But, because we disfavor implied repeal, we may reach that conclusion only if § 150 expressly states that “liquidated damages” includes all prejudgment interest or otherwise negates the entitlement in § 6H to prejudgment interest (which it does not), or if the addition of prejudgment interest to an award of lost wages and benefits is clearly inconsistent with the characterization of treble damages as “liquidated damages” (which it is not). Before § 150 was amended in 2008, an aggrieved employee who prevailed on a Wage Act claim was entitled to prejudgment interest on an award of lost wages and benefits. See, e.g., DeSantis v. Commonwealth Energy Sys., 68 Mass. App. Ct. 759, 768, 771 (2007) (upholding award of prejudgment interest on damages for lost wages and benefits under Wage Act). Where the employer’s conduct was so outrageous as to justify punitive damages, prejudgment interest would not be added to the trebled punitive damages award, but the award of punitive damages did not mean the deprivation of prejudgment interest on the award of lost wages and benefits. Cf. McEvoy Travel Bur., Inc. v. Norton Co., 408 Mass. 704, 717 & n.9 (1990) (prejudgment interest added to actual damages in G. L. c. 93A judgment, but not to multiple punitive damages). There is nothing in the legislative history of the 2008 amendment of § 150 to suggest that the Legislature intended to deprive an employee of prejudgment interest on lost wages and benefits when it characterized what had been punitive damages as liquidated damages. To do so would mean that an employee who was deprived of wages and benefits because of the outrageous conduct of his or her employer would receive the same treble damages under the amended § 150 as he or she would have obtained before the amendment, albeit as liquidated damages rather than punitive damages, but would obtain a lesser judgment because of the preclusion of prejudgment interest. Section 6H may be read in harmony with the amended § 150 simply by recognizing that the Legislature intended no change in the payment of prejudgment interest. Nor is there anything in the legislative history to suggest that the Legislature intended that the amended § 150 mirror the FLSA with respect to “liquidated damages.” We can infer that the Legislature did not intend the Wage Act fully to replicate the FLSA because it declined to adopt a good faith exception to the Wage Act’s mandatory damages requirement. As a result of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 260 (1947), liquidated damages under the FLSA must be remitted “if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of the [Act].” See Reich v. Southern New England Telecomm. Corp., 121 F.3d 58, 70-71 (2d Cir. 1997). By contrast, following the passage of the 2008 amendment to the Wage Act, the Legislature declined to accept the Governor’s proposed amendments — similar to those in the Portal-to-Portal Act — that would have allowed an exception to mandatory treble damages for employers who violated the Wage Act in good faith. See Rosnov, 460 Mass. at 482 n.9. The amended § 150 became law without the Governor’s signature. Id. Moreover, prejudgment interest and § 150 damages are different in kind and accomplish distinctly

Breach of Contract—Unjust Enrichment—Colorado Wage Protection Act—Civil Theft—Conversion—Economic Loss Rule—Attorney Fees. Bermel entered into a "Contractor Agreement" with BlueRadios, Inc. under which he provided engineering services to BlueRadios. He also signed a "Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement" (PIAA). The parties later ended their relationship. Anticipating that he might end up in litigation over unpaid wages, Bermel breached the PIAA by forwarding to his personal email account thousands of BlueRadios emails and attachments, some of which contained proprietary information. Bermel sent a demand letter to BlueRadios for unpaid wages, which BlueRadios paid. Bermel thereafter filed a lawsuit against BlueRadios asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Colorado Wage Protection Act (CWPA). BlueRadios filed counterclaims against him, including breach of contract civil theft, under CRS § 18-4-405 and conversion. The court granted summary judgment in favor of BlueRadios on Bermel's CWPA claim, and following trial, found Bermel liable on all of BlueRadios' counterclaims. On appeal, Bermel contended that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for summary judgment, in which he argued that the economic loss rule barred BlueRadios' claim for civil theft. Because the economic loss rule is a judicial construct and a civil theft claim is a statutory cause of action, the economic loss rule does not preclude a cause of action under the civil theft statute. Bermel also argued that the trial court erred in granting BlueRadios' motion for summary judgment on his CWPA claim, contending that the court failed to apply the CWPA's definition of "employee" when it concluded he was an independent contractor. The evidence attached to BlueRadios' motion for summary judgment did not establish that Bermel was free from control and direction under his contract or that he was customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation

Whether employee waived claim for wages/Damages

ROBERT PAUL MORRIS v. SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC and RYAN C. FRY No. 429PA13 Filed 10 June 2016 1. Employer and Employee — Wage and Hours Act — patent bonuses — patents pending when employment ended In a compensation and intellectual property dispute between plaintiff and his former employer arising from the employer’s patent bonus program, the trial court did not err by denying the employer’s motions for direct verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of whether plaintiff was entitled to patent issuance bonuses for patents still pending when his employment ended. Plaintiff presented more than a scintilla of evidence supporting his Wage and Hours Act claim: Plaintiff testified that his bonuses were earned at the time the patents were filed, and another witness confirmed that bonuses were earned at the time patents were filed. 2. Employer and Employee — Wage and Hours Act — patent bonuses — calculability—question for jury In a compensation and intellectual property dispute between plaintiff and his former employer arising from the employer’s patent bonus program, the Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the Court of Appeals that the question of whether a wage is “calculable” under the Wage and Hours Act is one of fact, not law, and that the trial court properly submitted the question to the jury. Plaintiff argued at trial that value of the patent issuance bonuses for patent applications still pending with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office could be calculated using the following formula: 150 outstanding patents x $5,000 for each successfully issued patent x 90% patent issuance success rate = $675,000. The employer failed to offer any other formula at trial, and the meaning of “calculable” includes “capable of being estimated.” 3. Employer and Employee — patent bonuses — liquidated damages In a compensation and intellectual property dispute between plaintiff and his former employer arising from the employer’s patent bonus program, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to liquidated damages on the jury’s award of issuance bonuses associated with unissued patents. The employer had reason to believe that it did not owe plaintiff the bonuses. 4. Employer and Employee — patent bonuses — Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act damages — not trebeled In a compensation and intellectual property dispute between plaintiff and his former employer arising from the employer’s patent bonus program, the trial court did not err when it declined to treble the jury’s award of Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA) damages. Proving a willful violation of N.C.G.S. § 95-241 requires a showing of the accused party’s knowledge or reckless disregard of whether an action violated the statute. Competent evidence supported the trial court’s decision to not treble plaintiff’s REDA award. 5. Employer and Employee — patent bonuses — rescission— money damages sufficient remedy In a compensation and intellectual property dispute between plaintiff and his former employer arising from the employer’s patent bonus program, the Court of Appeals erred by holding that plaintiff was entitled to rescission. A party may pursue rescission only when a material breach occurs and all legal remedies fall short of compensating the injured party for its loss. Plaintiff claimed that his employer owed him $5,000 to $10,000 for each patent at issue, and money damages provided him with a complete remedy. On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 229 N.C. App. 31, 747 S.E.2d 362 (2013), finding no error in part, affirming in part, and reversing in part a memorandum opinion entered on 4 January 2012, a judgment entered on 14 May 2012, and an order entered on 27 June 2012, all by Judge James L. Gale in Superior Court, Wake County, and remanding in part for further judgment. On 18 December 2014, the Supreme Court allowed plaintiff’s conditional petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court on 18 May 2015. Young Moore and Henderson P.A., by Walter E. Brock, Jr., Andrew P. Flynt, and Patrick M. Aul, for plaintiff -appellee/appellant. Parker Poe Adams&BemsteinLLP, by CatharineB. Arrowood, Scott E. Bayzle, and Catherine R.L. Lawson, for defendant-appellants/ appellees. Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, by Richard A. Coughlin and Matthew Nis Leerberg, for North Carolina Chamber of Commerce, North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, and North Carolina State University, amici curiae. Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., by John R. Wester and Thomas Holdemess, for Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Incorporated, Cisco Systems, Inc., Microsoft Corp., and Cree, Inc., amici curiae. BEASLEY, Justice. This appeal arises out of a compensation and intellectual property dispute between Robert Paul Morris (“plaintiff’) and his former employer Scenera Research, LLC and its CEO Ryan Fry (collectively, “defendants”). In 2004, Stanley Fry, defendant Ryan Fry’s father, hired plaintiff as Scenera’s first employee. The parties did not sign a written employment agreement. They did, however, have several discussions concerning the details of plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff expressed interest in inventing, but testified at trial that he had no obligation to invent. According to plaintiff, inventing was not part of his regular job duties for which he received a base salary. Plaintiff participated in Scenera’s patent bonus program (the “bonus program”), under which he received $5000 for every patent application submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and another $5000 if and when the patent issued. Defendant Ryan Fry became concerned with the bonus program’s viability and suspended Scenera’s bonus program for all employees effective 1 January 2008. Plaintiff testified that Scenera owed him $210,000 in patent bonuses at this time. Plaintiff voluntarily suspended receipt of payments beginning in January 2008, believing that defendant Fry had promised to reinstate the original bonus program if Scenera did not create a new compensation plan and, thereafter, provide plaintiff a written employment contract. As of 2009, the parties had not been able to agree on a new compensation plan and plaintiff still had no written contract. Frustrated with this lack of progress, plaintiff hired a lawyer and threatened to sue under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (“WHA”) for the $210,000 in bonuses owed. The parties dispute the events that followed. Plaintiff claimed that Scenera fired him in retaliation for his threatening to bring a lawsuit, thereby violating the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (“REDA”). Defendants countered that plaintiff clearly intended to leave the company and that his lawyer indicated the only option was to negotiate a severance package — thus, plaintiff “effectively resigned” and defendants merely accepted the resignation. Defendants tendered plaintiff a check for $210,000 on the condition that he acknowledge Scenera’s ownership of patent applications filed and patents issued between 1 January 2008 and 17 June 2009. Plaintiff did not accept defendants’ offer. Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants alleging breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, uujust enrichment, and WHA and REDA violations. On 1 April 2011, the Chief Justice designated this action as a complex business case and assigned it to the North Carolina Business Court. Defendants asserted a counterclaim for declaratory judgment that (1) Scenera owns all inventions plaintiff developed during his employment, and (2) plaintiff was not entitled to bonuses for patent applications filed or patents issued any time after January 2008. Defendants also sought damages for breach of fiduciary duty and for plaintiffs failure to support prosecution of patent applications to the PTO. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted defendants’ motion in part, concluding that plaintiff was “hired to invent,” and that ownership of the patents presumptively rested with Scenera, with the onus on plaintiff to prove that an agreement between the parties vested ownership with him. The trial court also granted defendants’ summary judgment on plaintiffs claims for fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment. The trial court denied the remainder of plaintiff’s and defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Trial began on 30 January 2012. At the close of the evidence, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for a directed verdict with respect to the issue of patent ownership, but denied defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the WHA and REDA claims. The trial court submitted the rest of the issues to the jury, and the jury awarded plaintiff (1) $210,000 in patent bonuses under the WHA for applications filed or patents issued between 1 January 2008 and 17 June 2009, (2) $675,000 under the WHA in patent issuance bonuses for patent applications pending as of 17 June 2009, (3) and $390,000 for REDA violations. Plaintiff then requested liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees under the WHA, and treble damages and attorneys’ fees under REDA. The trial court denied plaintiff’s request to treble damages, awarded $450,000 in attorneys’ fees, and awarded $210,000 in liquidated damages for patents that have already issued. The trial court denied plaintiff’s request for liquidated damages under the WHA for patents that had not yet issued. The trial court further ruled that Scenera owned all of the inventions, patents, and patent applications listed in plaintiffs complaint, required plaintiff to assign any unassigned patent applications to Scenera, and ruled that Scenera could not recover damages under its counterclaims. Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), and the trial court denied the motion. All parties appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the motions for directed verdict and JNOV, liquidated damages, WHA damages, and REDA damages. The court reversed, however, the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff could not pursue rescission. Morris v. Scenera Research, LLC, 229 N.C. App. 31, 747 S.E.2d 362 (2013). All parties appealed. I A Defendants contend that the trial court should have granted their motions for directed verdict and JNOV as to whether plaintiff was entitled to patent issuance bonuses for patents still pending when his employment with Scenera ended. To survive a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, the non-movant must present “more than a scintilla of evidence” to support its claim. Stark v. Ford Motor Co., 365 N.C. 468, 480, 723 S.E.2d 753, 761 (2012) (citation omitted). While a scintilla is “very slight evidence,” State v. Hawkins, 155 N.C. 466, 470, 71 S.E. 326, 328 (1911) (quoting State v. White, 89 N.C. 462, 464-65 (1883)), the non-movant’s evidence must still “do more than raise a suspicion, conjecture, guess, surmise, or speculation as to the pertinent facts in order to justify its submission to the jury,” Jenrette Transp. Co. v. Atl. Fire Ins. Co., 236 N.C. 534, 539, 73 S.E.2d 481, 485 (1952) (citation omitted). The trial court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and resolve all evidentiary conflicts in the non-movant’s favor. Smith v. Price, 315 N.C. 523, 527, 340 S.E.2d 408, 411 (1986) (citations omitted). We review this question of law de novo. Green v. Freeman, 367 N.C. 136, 141, 749 S.E.2d 262, 267 (2013) (citations omitted). The WHA provides: Employees whose employment is discontinued for any reason shall be paid all wages due on or before the next regular payday either through the regular pay channels or by mail if requested by the employee. Wages based on bonuses, commissions or other forms of calculation shall be paid on the first regular payday after the amount becomes calculable when a separation occurs. N.C.G.S. § 95-25.7 (2015). At trial, plaintiff testified that he, like other Scenera employees, had a unique bonus plan, and that he was never informed that continued employment with Scenera was a prerequisite for receiving patent issuance bonuses. Plaintiff confirmed in his testimony that “the issuance bonus . . . was earned at the time the patent application was filed.” He further testified that after a patent was filed and he assigned the corresponding rights to Scenera, “I was entitled to $5,000.... There was nothing as far as work with respect to the patent that I needed to do in order to earn that bonus.” Moreover, Mona Singh, an inventor and witness for Scenera, confirmed that “whatever bonuses applied to [her] agreement became earned and due at the time the patent was filed.” Singh also testified that she had received five or six issuance bonuses after leaving Scenera. We hold that plaintiff has carried his minimal burden of presenting more than a scintilla of evidence supporting his WHA claim. While defendants cite conflicting evidence (some of which we discuss below), in the context of a directed verdict and JNOV, the trial court must resolve these conflicts in plaintiff’s favor. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that the trial court properly submitted the question of whether plaintiff was entitled to the issuance bonuses to the jury and properly denied defendants’ directed verdict and JNOV motions. B Defendants further argue that the Court of Appeals erred in construing the term “calculable” under the WHA to mean capable of being estimated. As a preliminary matter, we address the Court of Appeals’ holding that the question of whether a wage is “calculable” under the WHA is one of fact, not law, and that therefore the trial court could properly submit the question to the jury. The Court of Appeals explained that determining whether a wage is calculable “requires a weighing of the evidence and, thus, falls in a jury trial within the exclusive purview of the jury.” Morris, 229 N.C. App. at 44, 747 S.E.2d at 370 (citations omitted). As we have explained, it is for the trial court “to determine whether the evidence ... is sufficient to permit a legitimate inference of the facts essential to recovery; and it is the province of the jury to weigh the evidence and to determine what it proves or fails to prove.” Sneed v. Lions Club of Murphy, N.C., Inc., 273 N.C. 98, 101, 159 S.E.2d 770, 772 (1968) (citations omitted). “It is still for the jury if reasonable [minds] may differ as to its truth or if conflicting inferences may reasonably be drawn from” the evidence. Cutts v. Casey, 278 N.C. 390, 421, 180 S.E.2d 297, 314 (1971) (citations omitted). Because determining whether a wage is calculable involves a weighing of the evidence, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that this issue presents a question of fact. At trial, plaintiff argued that the value of the patent issuance bonuses for patent applications still pending with the PTO could be calculated using the following formula: 150 outstanding patents x $5,000 for each successfully issued patent x 90% patent issuance success rate = $675,000. The trial court instructed the jury to determine whether it could calculate the issuance bonuses owed, and if so, to compute that amount. The Court of Appeals first noted that neither the WHA nor case law define the term “calculable.” The court therefore consulted the American Heritage College Dictionary, which defined calculable as “ ‘[t]hat [which] can be calculated or estimated.'’ ” Morris, 229 N.C. App. at 45, 747 S.E.2d at 371 (quoting The American Heritage College Dictionary 198 (3d ed. 1997) (emphasis added)). The court concluded that plaintiffs proffered formula "was at least one reasonable way to calculate” the bonuses and therefore held that the trial court did not err in submitting this question to the jury. Id. at 45, 747 S.E.2d at 371. Defendants again argue that “calculable” does not mean capable of being estimated because this interpretation would allow impermissible speculation as to future wages. Defendants cite the rule that “the party seeking damages must show that the amount of damages is based upon a standard that will allow the finder of fact to calculate the amount of damages with reasonable certainty.” Olivetti Corp. v. Ames Bus. Sys., Inc., 319 N.C. 534, 547-48, 356 S.E.2d 578, 586 (1987) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs formula, they contend, does not allow for the reasonably certain determination of issuance bonuses associated with pending patent applications. We disagree. In other contexts in which a party seeks to recover lost profits, that party must show “both the amount and [the] cause of his loss. Absolute certainty, however, is not required, but both the cause and the amount of the loss must be shown with reasonable certainty.” Cary v. Harris, 178 N.C. 624, 628, 101 S.E. 486, 488 (1919) (quoting Nance v. W. Union Tel. Co., 177 N.C. 314, 317, 98 S.E. 838, 840 (1919)). The evidence indicated that plaintiff had completed all the work required for the patents to issue. An employer must pay “those wages and benefits due when the employee has actually performed the work required to earn them." Kornegay v. Aspen Asset Grp., 204 N.C. App. 213, 229, 693 S.E.2d 723, 735 (2010) (quoting Narron v. Hardee’s Food Sys., Inc., 75 N.C. App. 579, 583, 331 S.E.2d 205, 208 (emphasis added), disc. rev. denied, 314 N.C. 542, 335 S.E.2d 316 (1985)). We further note that defendants presented no evidence at trial challenging the adequacy of plaintiff’s formula. Because defendants offered no other formula, this Court need only be concerned that the result reached, based on the evidence presented, is reasonable. See Jenrette Transp. Co., 236 N.C. at 539-40, 73 S.E.2d at 485. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that determining calculability of wages under the WHA is a question of fact to be submitted to a jury. II We next address plaintiff’s argument that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision to refrain from awarding plaintiff liquidated damages on the jury’s award of issuance bonuses associated with unissued patents. First, we must determine the appropriate standard of review. Plaintiff contends that de novo review applies, while defendants contend that we should apply a three-tiered standard as used by federal courts addressing claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). In Kornegay v. Aspen Asset Group, LLC, the Court of Appeals adopted the latter approach. [T]he traditional standard of review that applies to a trial court’s factual findings — in federal court, the “clearly erroneous” standard and in North Carolina, the “competent evidence” standard — applies to findings of fact made by a trial court in addressing a claim for liquidated damages. In reviewing the trial court’s conclusions of law, the courts have held that review is de novo, including on the issue whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law. 204 N.C. App. at 245, 693 S.E.2d at 745. The trial court’s final decision to award or refrain from awarding liquidated damages is then reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at 244, 693 S.E.2d at 744. We adopt the Court of Appeals’ reasoning in Kornegay and review the trial court’s decision to not award plaintiff liquidated damages for an abuse of discretion. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to liquidated damages. The WHA provides: In addition to the amounts awarded pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the court shall award liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount found to be due as provided in subsection (a) of this section, provided that if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission constituting the violation was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of this Article, the court ma