Pennsylvania Wage Attorney Update: Plaintiff Prejudgment Interest and Liquidated Damages Are Not Mutually Exclusive Under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Act

On March 21, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court handed down and important decision that is worth reading if you are a Pennsylvania wage and hour attorney. The decision is captioned Andrews v. Cross Atlantic Capital Partners, Inc., No 1694 EDA 2014 and is available through this link: V. CROSS ATLANTIC%22

The Andrews Court held that a plaintiff who proves that the employer failed to pay her wages under both a breach of contract and a Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (PWPCL) theory can recover both prejudgment interest (available under breach of contract theory) and liquidated damages (available under the PWPCL theory). The Court explains that the PWPCL is meant to supplement — not supplant — the breach of contract claim. The decision also contains some helpful language regarding the PWPCL’s legislative purpose and burden of proof issues. You will see what I mean if you read the opinion.

Related Posts
  • Pete Winebrake Discusses Wage and Overtime Rights on Gambone Law Podcast Read More
  • Trump Administration’s Joint Employment and Independent Contractor Regulations Are “On the Ropes” Read More
  • Two Takeaways From Pennsylvania’s August 2022 PMWA Regulations Read More