Background
Celia Vasquez worked as a server at Sliders Bar & Grill restaurants from 2017 to 2019. She filed a putative class action on June 26, 2023, alleging that the defendants violated Connecticut wage laws by improperly deducting the full tip credit from her pay and that of similarly situated servers, even when they performed “nonservice” duties. These duties included cleaning and stocking bathrooms, wiping shelves and stations, and other side work performed during serving shifts.
Under the applicable regulation in effect during Vasquez’s employment (§ 31-62-E4 of the 2015 Connecticut Regulations), employers could only apply the tip credit to hours worked in service categories when time spent on nonservice work was “definitely segregated and so recorded.” Vasquez alleged the defendants failed to segregate her time between service and nonservice work from May 11, 2018, to September 23, 2020. The defendants moved to strike the complaint, arguing it failed to state a claim and was time-barred.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. The dispositive issue was Public Act 22-134, enacted in May 2022, which amended Connecticut’s minimum wage statute (§ 31-60(d)) to provide that any wage claims filed after September 24, 2022, must be “adjudicated, solely, under section 31-60-2 of the regulations of Connecticut state agencies effective on September 24, 2020.” This new regulation superseded the old regulation (§ 31-62-E4) that governed wage calculations during Vasquez’s employment.
The court held that because Vasquez filed her claim on June 26, 2023—nearly nine months after the September 24, 2022 effective date—she could not assert claims solely under the old regulation. She did not allege violations of the new regulation. The court rejected her due process argument that retroactive application of the new law impermissibly divested her of a vested property interest in her cause of action. The court adopted the reasoning of its companion case, Farias v. Rodriguez, which presented identical legal issues, holding that the statutory amendment did not retroactively extinguish her substantive right to bring a wage claim, but rather changed the legal standard under which such claims must be assessed.
Key Takeaways
- Wage claims filed after a statutory amendment’s effective date must be adjudicated under the new law, even if alleging conduct predating the amendment.
- Retroactive application of new wage regulations does not violate due process or constitute an impermissible taking of a vested right merely because it changes the applicable legal standard.
- The timing of claim filing, not the timing of alleged violations, determines which regulation governs the legal sufficiency of a wage claim.
Why It Matters
This decision establishes significant temporal barriers for Connecticut wage claimants. Workers cannot simply wait years to file claims based on conduct that violates old regulations—if a regulation is amended and they file after the new effective date, they must comply with the new legal framework. This creates pressure on employees to file promptly or risk their claims becoming legally insufficient under new rules. For Vasquez specifically, it meant that even though her employer may have violated the wage rules in effect during 2018–2020, she could not recover because she filed her claim under a regulation that no longer governed such claims.
The case also reflects a pattern of wage litigation against Sliders: this was the third putative class action brought by servers alleging similar tip credit violations (the earlier two settled). The decision signals that future claimants must monitor regulatory changes and file timely, as statutory amendments can render previously viable claims legally insufficient.