Robertson v. Opequon Motors
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
519 S.E.2d 843 (1999)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Lucille Robertson and other commissioned salespeople (employees) (plaintiffs) sued the automobile dealership where they were employed, Opequon Motors, Inc. (dealership) (defendant), alleging violations of West Virginia’s Wage Payment and Collection Act (wage act). The employees alleged, among other things, that the dealership failed to properly compensate them for holiday and vacation time and unlawfully withheld certain amounts from their pay. For instance, the dealership’s employee handbook identified various holidays on which employees would be compensated at their regular rate of pay without reporting to work. For commissioned employees, the policy stated that holiday pay would be determined based upon the draw amount that the employee received per day. The employees argued that they did not receive compensation for certain designated holidays. Another dealership policy stated that employees would receive a certain number of paid vacation days; however, the dealership paid the employees for their vacation time on February 15 of the following year rather than at the end of the pay period in which the vacation days were taken. The dealership also withheld from employees’ paychecks costs associated with their customers’ use of a credit card and costs for repairs made to cars that the employees had sold. The trial court found that the dealership violated the wage act, and the dealership appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.