Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 31 — LABOR · Chapter 558 — Wages
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-72 (2026)

Civil action to collect wage claim, fringe benefit claim or arbitration award

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When any employer fails to pay an employee wages in accordance with the provisions of sections 31-71a to 31-71i, inclusive, or fails to compensate an employee in accordance with section 31-76k or where an employee or a labor organization representing an employee institutes an action to enforce an arbitration award which requires an employer to make an employee whole or to make payments to an employee welfare fund, such employee or labor organization shall recover, in a civil action, (1) twice the full amount of such wages, with costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court, or (2) if the employer establishes that the employer had a good faith belief that the underpayment of wages was in compliance with law, the full amount of such wages or compensation, with costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court. Any agreement between an employee and his or her employer for payment of wages other than as specified in said sections shall be no defense to such action. The Labor Commissioner may collect the full amount of any such unpaid wages, payments due to an employee welfare fund or such arbitration award, as well as interest calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 31-265 from the date the wages or payment should have been received, had payment been made in a timely manner. In addition, the Labor Commissioner may bring any legal action necessary to recover twice the full amount of unpaid wages, payments due to an employee welfare fund or arbitration award, and the employer shall be required to pay the costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court. The commissioner shall distribute any wages, arbitration awards or payments due to an employee welfare fund collected pursuant to this section to the appropriate person.

(1951, S. 1291b; 1955, S. 3015d; 1967, P.A. 641; P.A. 78-358, S. 2, 6; P.A. 89-157, S. 2; P.A. 90-55, S. 1, 3; P.A. 15-86, S. 2.)

History: 1967 act deleted reference to repealed Sec. 31-71, added reference to Secs. 31-71a to 31-37i, authorized recoveries by labor organizations and made provisions applicable to cases where employee or labor organization institutes action to enforce arbitration award; P.A. 78-358 authorized recovery of twice the amount of wages and costs where previously recovery was limited to the amount itself and substituted “recover the amount provided by this section” for “collect such claim” in provision re bringing of legal action; P.A. 89-157 deleted the provisions allowing the labor commissioner to take an assignment of an employee's wage claim and provided for the collection and distribution by the labor commissioner of unpaid wages, payments due an employee welfare fund and arbitration awards; P.A. 90-55 made provisions applicable to cases where employer has failed to compensate an employee in accordance with Sec. 31-76k; P.A. 15-86 replaced “may” with “shall” re recovery in civil action, designated provision re twice the full amount of wages as Subdiv. (1), added Subdiv. (2) re employer's good faith belief, and made technical changes.

See Sec. 52-596 re statute of limitation for actions for payment of remuneration for employment.

Award of attorney's fees and costs does not apply to proceedings to confirm, modify or vacate arbitration awards, which are not civil actions within meaning of title 52, but only to civil actions later brought to enforce such orders. 176 C. 401. Cited. 209 C. 818; 211 C. 648; 212 C. 294; 217 C. 490; 219 C. 217. Legislature did not exempt real estate salespersons from section as was done in Unemployment and Workers' Compensation Acts. 231 C. 690. Award of double damages justified where employer requested employee to work additional hours, assured employee that she would be paid and then subsequently denied payment of overtime wages; determination of whether an individual can be considered an employer where a corporate entity exists depends on the individual's authority to control hours and wages and responsibility for illegally withholding wages. 243 C. 454. Analysis of legislative history; wage statutes, as a whole, do not provide substantive rights regarding how a wage is earned, but provide remedial protections where employer-employee wage agreement is violated. 260 C. 152. It is well established that it is appropriate for plaintiff to recover attorney's fees and double damages under section only when defendant has acted with bad faith, arbitrariness or unreasonableness; if a contingency fee agreement is reasonable, trial court may depart from its terms only when necessary to prevent substantial unfairness to the party who bears ultimate responsibility for payment of the fee. 265 C. 210. Double damage award under section not equivalent to punitive or exemplary damages; provision prohibiting employer from raising agreement for payment of wages between employer and employee as defense against action for unpaid wages does not bar employer from raising agreement for other purposes, such as ground for vacating arbitration award. 275 C. 72. Definitions in Sec. 31-71a apply when construing section. 293 C. 515. Contract provision providing that commissions will be paid only if the work had been invoiced prior to termination of the employee does not violate statutorily based public policy and is enforceable; an employee cannot use the nonpayment of wages that have not accrued as the basis for a wrongful discharge claim. 322 C. 385.

Cited. 8 CA 254; 10 CA 22. Provisions govern collection of wages; employees' rights under these statutory provisions are not preempted by collective bargaining agreements. 16 CA 232. Cited. 18 CA 618; 26 CA 251; 27 CA 800; 35 CA 31; 36 CA 29. Plaintiff's pension and medical benefits do not qualify as “wages” pursuant to section. 57 CA 419. Award of double damages and attorney's fees in unpaid wage case was reasonable exercise of court's discretion. 69 CA 463. Statute construed to empower Labor Commissioner to initiate legal action for enforcement of payment bond on behalf of employees of subcontractor against general contractor and surety on public works project; statute, together with Secs. 49-41 and 49-42 re public works and bond enforcement, intended by legislature as remedial statutory scheme to ensure that employees on public works projects are paid wages to which they are entitled. 73 CA 39. Since grievance procedures established in collective bargaining agreement were not capable of providing relief for plaintiff's claim, plaintiff did not have to exhaust her administrative remedies before bringing an action under section since to do so would be futile. 78 CA 601. Section only provides for the recovery of attorney's fees where employee is the party making a claim against employer and does not apply where employee was sued by employer under theories of money had and received, unjust enrichment and conversion. 136 CA 535.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 143 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Saunders v. Firtel, 978 A.2d 487 (Conn. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Saunders v. Firtel, 978 A.2d 487 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 76× “In its memorandum of decision, the trial court awarded the plaintiff Barry Saunders [1] double damages, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72, upon its finding "that the refusal of [the defendant Adco Medical Supplies, Inc.”
Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 881 A.2d 139 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 60× “The trial court concluded that the arbitration panel had not manifestly disregarded the law in awarding to the *75 plaintiff compensatory damages for the defendant’s failure to pay the plaintiff a 1999 annual bonus and, pursuant to the wage collection statute, General Statutes §…”
Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 828 A.2d 64 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 39× “6 The plaintiffs sought to recover, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72, 7 double damages, costs and attorney’s fees on the unpaid wages claims.”
Geysen v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 142 A.3d 227 (Conn. 2016). · cites it 18× “2016) § 31-72. 2 The defendant, Securitas Security Services, USA, Inc.”
Shortt v. New Milford Police Dep't, 562 A.2d 7 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 48× “This appeal involves two questions of construction concerning the scope of General Statutes § 31-72 1 : (1) whether a municipality constituted an *296 “employer” for the purposes of this statute under the definition contained in General Statutes § 31-71a (1) prior to its…”
Butler ex rel. Skidmore v. Hartford Technical Inst., Inc., 704 A.2d 222 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 37× “The plaintiff, the commissioner of the department of labor, brought this action pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72, 1 on behalf of Marjorie Skid-more against the defendants, Hartford Technical Institute, Inc.”
Ravetto v. Triton Thalassic Tech., Inc., 941 A.2d 309 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 26× “Pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72, [5] the plaintiffs sought to recover the unpaid wages, double damages, costs, interest and attorney's fees.”
Tianti v. William Raveis Real Est., Inc., 651 A.2d 1286 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 26× “, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72, 1 to *692 collect unpaid remuneration allegedly owed to Gluck and Lyren by the defendant.”
Crowther v. Gerber Garment Tech., Inc., 513 A.2d 144 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 23× “Pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72, 1 the plaintiff sought, and the *261 court awarded, double damages in the sum of an additional $44,335.”
Healey v. Haymond Law Firm, P.C., 166 A.3d 10 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 39× “Healey, damages for unpaid wages pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72. 2 On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by charging the jury on the amended version of § 31-72 because the amendment took effect after this action had commenced.”
Fulco v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 609 A.2d 1034 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992). · cites it 21× “90-55, amending General Statutes § 31-72, (2) found that he had not stated a cause of action under General Statutes § 31-72 as it existed before its amendment by Public Acts 1990, No.”
Morales v. Pentec, Inc., 749 A.2d 47 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 26× “Callahan, for breach of an employment contract with regard to a pension and profit sharing plan in the first count, medical benefits in the second count and failure to pay wages pursuant to General Statutes § 31-72 in the third count.”
Show all 143 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-72(3) — 1 case
Datto Inc. v. Braband, 856 F. Supp. 2d 354 (D. Conn. 2012).
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-72(a)(3) — 1 case
Datto Inc. v. Braband, 856 F. Supp. 2d 354 (D. Conn. 2012).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.