Labor & Employment – Wage Payment Act – Employment Agreement

Listen to this article

The circuit court did not err in finding a nurse practitioner could bring a claim under the Wage Payment Act for his 2015 bonus based on the requirement of the 2010 Agreement.

We affirmed in part and reversed in part.

In this cross-appeal, Morphis Pediatric Group of Lancaster, PA (MPG) and Elizabeth J. Morphis, M.D., appealed the circuit court’s orders (1) denying their posttrial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and remittitur; (2) granting nurse practitioner Paul David Hess’s motion for an award of treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and prejudgment interest; and (3) denying their motion to amend the order granting Hess’s motion for prejudgment interest. In his cross-appeal, Hess argued the circuit court erred by sua sponte reducing his attorneys’ fee award to a rate of $300 per hour when MPG and Dr. Morphis expressly waived any argument regarding the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rate.

Among other things, MPG and Dr. Morphis argued the circuit court erred by denying their motion for JNOV on the ground that the Wage Payment Act’s three-year statute of limitations barred Hess’s causes of action. They argued Hess knew or should have known about his claims regarding his bonus three years before he filed his lawsuit on September 27, 2018. We disagreed. We held the circuit court did not err by denying MPG and Dr. Morphis’s motion for JNOV on this issue because the parties presented conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Hess knew or should have known he had a cause of action more than three years before he filed his complaint on September 27, 2018. Because conflicting evidence was presented at trial as to whether Hess knew or should have known of his claims under the Wage Payment Act more than three years before he filed his complaint, the circuit court did not err by submitting this issue to the jury.

MPG and Dr. Morphis argued Hess’s bonus was discretionary because his employment agreement stated that if he met the “criteria” of the board of MPG he was only “eligible” for a bonus. They argued Hess’s contract was an illusory promise because Dr. Morphis’s obligation under the contract gave her “sole discretion whether or not to perform” the contract. MPG and Dr. Morphis also contended the formula for Hess’s bonus gave Dr. Morphis discretion to deduct anything she wished in making the bonus determination. MPG and Dr. Morphis further argued that even if Hess’s bonus was not discretionary, it cannot be enforced because the terms of the bonus provision in the employment agreement were indefinite. They argued that because terms in the bonus provision of the 2010 Agreement such as “criteria,” “eligible,” “profit,” “royalties,” “monies,” “debts,” “expenses,” and “expenditures” were undefined and had varying interpretations, Hess’s employment agreement was unenforceable and he could not bring a claim for the bonus under the Wage Payment Act. MPG and Dr. Morphis contended there was no ordinary meaning for the undefined terms in Hess’s employment agreement. We disagreed. We held the circuit court did not err in denying MPG and Dr. Morphis’s motion for JNOV based on their argument that the contract was an unenforceable promise because evidence was presented to the jury from which it could determine the 2010 Agreement was enforceable in regard to Hess’s bonuses. Thus, we held the circuit court did not err in denying MPG and Dr. Morphis’s motion for JNOV based on their argument that the 2010 Agreement was not enforceable.

Finally, MPG and Dr. Morphis argued Hess cannot bring a claim for damages related to his 2015 bonus based on the notification requirement of the Wage Payment Act, which states that any changes in the terms must be made in writing seven days before becoming effective, because he received more than seven days’ notice of the change to his bonus in the 2015 Agreement. We disagreed. The circuit court did not err in denying MPG and Dr. Morphis’s motion for JNOV on the issue of whether Hess could bring a claim under the Wage Payment Act because evidence shows Hess did not have notice of the changes in the 2015 Agreement at the time that his 2015 bonus was paid. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in finding Hess could bring a claim under the Wage Payment Act for his 2015 bonus based on the requirement of the 2010 Agreement. For the foregoing reasons, we affirmed the circuit court’s denial of MPG and Dr. Morphis’s motion for JNOV.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Hess v. Morphis Pediatric Group of Lancaster P.A. (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-025-25, 20 pp.) (Jerry D. Vinson Jr., J.) Appealed from Lancaster County Circuit Court (DeAndrea G. Benjamin, J.) Charles Franklin Thompson, Jr., of Malone Thompson Summers & Ott, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellants-Respondents. David Eliot Rothstein, of Rothstein Law Firm, P.A., of Greenville, for Respondent-Appellant. South Carolina Court of Appeals