O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 (2019)

Annotations

Cross references. Time limitation on bringing of action by employee to recover difference between wages actually paid and state minimum wage, § 34-4-6. Time limitation on action to recover wages not paid as result of sex discrimination, § 34-5-5.

Law reviews. For article, “Some Rescission Problems in Truth-In-Lending, as Viewed From Georgia,” see 7 Ga. St. B.J. 315 (1971). For article surveying local government law in 1984-85, see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 313 (1985). For survey article on trial practice and procedure for the period from June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2003, see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 439 (2003). For annual survey of labor and employment law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 251 (2005).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS ANALYSIS GENERAL CONSIDERATION RIGHTS UNDER STATUTES RECOVERY FOR WAGES, OVERTIME, AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT ISSUES

LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS General Consideration

Purpose of section. - Evident purpose of this section is to fix a period of limitation for special cases not provided for by general statute of limitations or otherwise, when rights accruing to “individuals” are sought to be enforced. McDaniel v. Kelley, 61 Ga. App. 105, 5 S.E.2d 672, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 229 (1939). Legislative intent. - Before enactment of Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 233, § 12, from which this section was codified, there was of force in this state no statute prescribing a limitation as is fixed by the enactment; hence, the legislature enacted a plain and unambiguous statement of the law, which was intended to relieve the feeling of uncertainty and doubt theretofore existing. Nixon v. Nixon, 196 Ga. 148, 26 S.E.2d 711, 1943 Ga. LEXIS 355 (1943). This section provides omnibus time provision for all statutorily created remedies which do not themselves specify an applicable limitation period. McNeal v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 598 F.2d 888, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13305 (5th Cir. 1979). Meaning of “actions”. - Word “suits” (now “actions”), as used in this section, is general term denoting any legal proceeding in court. Nixon v. Nixon, 196 Ga. 148, 26 S.E.2d 711, 1943 Ga. LEXIS 355 (1943). Rights must arise under legislative enactment. - The 20-year statute of limitation of this section has reference only to rights which arise under legislative enactment, and which would not exist except for some Act of the legislature. Williams v. Clemons, 178 Ga. 619, 173 S.E. 718, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 116 (1934); Houston v. Doe, 136 Ga. App. 583, 222 S.E.2d 131, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1427 (1975); McMillian v. City of Rockmart, 653 F.2d 907, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18720 (5th Cir. 1981). This section applies to cases in which a special liability is created by a special charter or statute. Williams v. Clemons, 178 Ga. 619, 173 S.E. 718, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 116 (1934). Rights do not arise by contract. - Statutory liability is one that depends for its existence and creation upon special

enactment of a statute and not upon contract of the parties on which an additional remedy by statute is given. Pare v. Mahone, 32 Ga. 253, 1861 Ga. LEXIS 169 (1861); Savannah & Ogeechee Canal Co. v. Shuman, 98 Ga. 171, 25 S.E. 415, 1896 Ga. LEXIS 2 (1896); Peavy v. Turner, 107 Ga. 401, 33 S.E. 409, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 83 (1899); Wimbush v. Curry, 8 Ga. App. 223, 68 S.E. 951, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 113 (1910); McDaniel v. Kelley, 61 Ga. App. 105, 5 S.E.2d 672, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 229 (1939). Right arising under statute, in contemplation of this section, must arise in virtue of provisions of the statute and not in virtue of contract between the parties. Nixon v. Nixon, 196 Ga. 148, 26 S.E.2d 711, 1943 Ga. LEXIS 355 (1943). Right must be conferred on specified individuals or class. - Limitation of this section was enacted for rights of action given to individuals by special legislative Acts, such as statute of incorporation. Hendryx v. E.C. Atkins & Co., 79 F.2d 508, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4168 (5th Cir. 1935). This section refers to statutes that confer rights upon specified individuals or designated class of individuals and not upon general public as a whole. Nixon v. Nixon, 196 Ga. 148, 26 S.E.2d 711, 1943 Ga. LEXIS 355 (1943). Every statute specifically conferring rights upon individual or class to which individual belongs is embraced in this section. Nixon v. Nixon, 196 Ga. 148, 26 S.E.2d 711, 1943 Ga. LEXIS 355 (1943). Statute involved must be special enactment which creates liability in favor of particular individuals for 20-year limitation period to apply. Dudley v. Southeastern Factor & Fin. Corp., 57 F.R.D. 177, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10998 (N.D. Ga. 1972). This section is not applicable to rights conferred by law upon members of public at large, and as such, 20-year limitation period provided by this section has no application. Carter v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 392 F. Supp. 494, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6564 (S.D. Ga. 1974). This section applies only to rights of action given to individuals by spe-

General Consideration (Cont’d) cial legislative Acts and is not applicable in cases when a wrong against the public must first be done before a person can be injured. Greene v. Lam Amusement Co., 145 F. Supp. 346, 1956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2602 (D. Ga. 1956); McMillian v. City of Rockmart, 653 F.2d 907, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18720 (5th Cir. 1981). Rights of action within this section are those given to individuals by special legislative Acts, such as a statute of incorporation, but not actions based upon invasion of plaintiff’s personal rights, which are common with all other persons, when as part of the public the plaintiff has right of action for injuries sustained. Service Stages, Inc. v. Greyhound Corp., 170 F. Supp. 482, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3741 (D. Ga.), aff’d, 268 F.2d 739, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 5337 (5th Cir. 1959). In order to bring case within 20-year limitation period provided by this section, the liability must be one expressly created in favor of individual or class to which plaintiff belongs, as distinguished from one arising under general law in favor of all persons who might be injured. Carter v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 392 F. Supp. 494, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6564 (S.D. Ga. 1974). Assignee’s recovery of collateral under a life insurance policy. - Bank was properly granted summary judgment in an interpleader action involving competing claims between the bank and a widow to the proceeds of a life insurance policy as the decedent, the widow’s spouse, had assigned the policy to the bank as collateral for a loan in 1977 and, despite having had the debt discharged in bankruptcy, the bank was not precluded to recover the bank’s collateral. Further, the bank’s right to recover did not accrue until the decedent’s death; therefore, the statutes of limitation had not expired. Miller v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 292 Ga. App. 189, 663 S.E.2d 756, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 659 (2008). Rights Under Statutes Not applicable to migrant workers’ breach of contract claims. - Contrary to the employers’ argument, the state law

breach of contract claims of guest workers from Mexico arising prior to July 11, 2003, were not barred by the two-year statute of limitations in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 because 20 C.F.R. § 655.102(b)(14) specified that the workers held contract claims for underpayment, the six-year statute of limitations in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24 applied; the workers’ state law breach of contract claims were filed on July 11, 2005, easily within six years of the dates the claims accrued, and so the claims were timely filed under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24, and were not subject to dismissal on statute of limitations grounds. Morales-Arcadio v. Shannon Produce Farms, Inc., No. 605CV062, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3159 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 12, 2006). Statutory liability or penalty. - The 20-year statute of limitation is clearly applicable to a statutory liability or penalty. Bankers Fid. Life Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 106 Ga. App. 305, 126 S.E.2d 887, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 1073 (1962). When action was brought on independent statutory remedy afforded by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1564, § 1 (see now O.C.G.A. § 33-22-14(a)), relating to return of unearned insurance premiums, predicated on statutory obligation contained therein, and the statutory remedy was not a codification of a remedy existing at common law but was one arising solely from statute, former Code 1933, § 3-704 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22) applied. Perry & Co. v. Knight Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 149 Ga. App. 128, 253 S.E.2d 808, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1752 (1979). Claim by retired fireman for payment of monthly pension, being for a liability fixed by statute, was one to which the 20-year period of limitation applies. Pierce v. Rhodes, 208 Ga. 554, 67 S.E.2d 771, 1951 Ga. LEXIS 433 (1951). Contribution actions. - The 20-year statute of limitations for contribution actions is governed by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22. Krasaeath v. Parker, 212 Ga. App. 525, 441 S.E.2d 868, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 287 (1994), cert. denied, No. S94C1072, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 705 (Ga. May 13, 1994). Claim for contribution maintainable under a 20-year statute of limitations, based on an earlier medical malpractice action and alleging that x-ray studies

were negligently interpreted by the defendant radiologist, was barred by the fiveyear statute of repose for medical malpractice cases. Krasaeath v. Parker, 212 Ga. App. 525, 441 S.E.2d 868, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 287 (1994), cert. denied, No. S94C1072, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 705 (Ga. May 13, 1994). Actions for contribution and indemnity are governed by the 20-year statute of limitations contained in O.C.G.A. § 9-322. Union Carbide Corp. v. Thiokol Corp., 890 F. Supp. 1035, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20413 (S.D. Ga. 1994); Rolleston v. Cherry, 226 Ga. App. 750, 487 S.E.2d 354. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 is applicable only to rights which arise under legislative enactment and which would not exist except for some act of the legislature; thus, it is not applicable to claims for the right of contribution filed by one co-maker of a debt against another pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-7-50, which arises not out of statutory enactment, but is a claim based in equity. Gray v. Currie, No. 1:04-CV-3211TWT, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31407 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 21, 2005). Contribution and indemnity for subcontractor. - Subcontractor’s claim against a consultant for contribution was given by statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-32(a), and the subcontractor’s claim for indemnity arose by operation of law. Therefore, the subcontractor’s suit for contribution and indemnity against the consultant was a claim to enforce rights that accrued by operation of law or a statute and was subject to a 20-year statute of limitations under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22. Saiia Constr., LLC v. Terracon Consultants, Inc., 310 Ga. App. 713, 714 S.E.2d 3, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 502 (2011). Insurance subrogation actions. - Under O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11(f), in a subrogation action by an insurer to recover personal injury payments made to its insured, the insurer is bound by the twoyear statute of limitation of O.C.G.A. § 93-33, not the 20-year limitation of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22. Whirl v. Safeco Ins. Co., 241 Ga. App. 654, 527 S.E.2d 262, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 1683 (1999), cert. denied, No. S00C0682, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 437 (Ga. May 26, 2000). Rights created by insurance company charter and bylaws. - Rights of beneficiary of member of insurance com-

pany, contained in charter and bylaws, come within scope of this section. Georgia Masonic Ins. Co. v. Davis, 63 Ga. 471, 1879 Ga. LEXIS 251 (1879) (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22). Subrogation of motor vehicle accident claims. - Subrogation of insurance claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents are statutory and are subject to the 20-year statute of limitation. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 163 Ga. App. 20, 293 S.E.2d 509, 1982 Ga. App. LEXIS 2382 (1982). When charter provision confers right of action upon persons injured by failure of company to repair its canal, this section is applicable. Savannah & Ogeechee Canal Co. v. Shuman, 98 Ga. 171, 25 S.E. 415, 1896 Ga. LEXIS 2 (1896) (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22). Maryland action to enforce stockholder’s liability. - This section and not statute of limitations in Maryland applies to action in Maryland against stockholder in Georgia corporation to enforce liability as stockholder as created by corporate charter. Brunswick Term. Co. v. National Bank, 99 F. 635, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4174 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 178 U.S. 611, 20 S. Ct. 1029, 44 L. Ed. 1215, 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1704 (1900) (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22). Section applicable to causes of action arising solely under the Sale of Business Opportunities Act. - General statute of limitations, providing that an action to enforce a right accruing to an individual under state statute must be brought within 20 years after the action accrues, governs a cause of action arising solely under the Sale of Business Opportunities Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-410 et seq., since the act itself contains no statute of limitations. Hornsby v. Phillips, 190 Ga. App. 335, 378 S.E.2d 870, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 231 (1989). This section does not apply to actions under § 10(b) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78a et seq.), as this section applies only to special legislative statutes and acts of incorporation which confer rights upon particular individuals or a particular class of individuals and not to statutes which deal with the personal

Rights Under Statutes (Cont’d) legal rights of the public at large. Dudley v. Southeastern Factor & Fin. Corp., 57 F.R.D. 177, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10998 (N.D. Ga. 1972) (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-322). Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. - Four-year period of O.C.G.A. § 93-31 was applicable for purposes of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, § 10-1-370 et seq., not the 20year period of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22. Kason Indus. v. Component Hdwe. Group, 120 F.3d 1199, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 22846 (11th Cir. 1997). Payday lending litigation. - Supreme Court of Georgia is not persuaded that the Georgia legislature intended the period of limitation for bringing an enforcement action pursuant to the Payday Lending Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-17-1, et seq., to be governed by the one-year limitation period for forfeiture actions pursuant to the usury laws; instead, the Court concludes the remedies set forth in the Payday Lending Act are governed by the 20year statute of limitation set forth in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-1. W. Sky Fin., LLC v. State of Ga. ex rel. Olens, 300 Ga. 340, 793 S.E.2d 357, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 783 (2016). Right to recover for “injury or damages” contemplated by Uninsured Motorist Act (see now O.C.G.A. § 33-711) existed at common law and was not created anew by the legislature. Houston v. Doe, 136 Ga. App. 583, 222 S.E.2d 131, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1427 (1975). Penalty under O.C.G.A. § 47-17-60. - In mandamus action brought by Board of Commissioners of Peace Officers Annuity and Benefit Fund against county commissioners to collect penalty under Ga. L. 1975, p. 578, § 1 (see now O.C.G.A. § 4717-60) for failure to pay amounts due, the one-year limitation of former Code 1933, § 3-714 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-28), and not the 20-year limitation of former Code 1933, § 3-704 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-322), applied. Busbee v. Gillis, 241 Ga. 353, 245 S.E.2d 304, 1978 Ga. LEXIS 935 (1978). Subscription contract. - This section does not apply to an action on a contract of subscription to capital stock.

McDonell v. Hines, 28 Ga. App. 197, 110 S.E. 505, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 384 (1922). Section inapplicable under provision requiring entry of contracts on public records. - As the object of O.C.G.A. § 36-9-2, requiring the entry of contracts of conveyance on the minutes of a public official’s records, is to give information to the public, the statute of limitation in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 was inapplicable because the action arose from a claim that a public officer had failed to perform the officer’s official duty. Dade County v. Miami Land Co., 253 Ga. 776, 325 S.E.2d 750, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 590 (1985). Action for mileage tickets. - This section does not apply to an action for mileage tickets. South Georgia Ry. v. South Ga. Grocery Co., 17 Ga. App. 349, 86 S.E. 939, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 416 (1915). Recovery of interstate freight charges. - This section does not apply to an action by a carrier for interstate freight charges. Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. Ry. v. Malsby Co., 22 Ga. App. 595, 96 S.E. 710, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 614 (1918). Enforcement of attorney’s lien. - Former Civil Code 1895, § 3766 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22) did not apply to enforcement of attorney’s lien created by former Civil Code 1895, § 2814 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-19-14). Peavy v. Turner, 107 Ga. 401, 33 S.E. 409, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 83 (1899). When charter declares that “at the time of suits,” stockholders shall be individually liable for ultimate payment of debts of bank, in given proportion, this section does not begin to run in favor of stockholders until after date of such a suit. Wheatley v. Glover, 125 Ga. 710, 54 S.E. 626, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 2 (1906). Subrogation rights under workers’ compensation. - O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 did not apply to a subrogation claim filed pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-9-11.1(c), which allows an insurer who has paid worker’s compensation benefits to assert the employee’s cause of action against a third party who caused the injuries. Newsome v. Department of Admin. Servs., 241 Ga. App. 357, 526 S.E.2d 871, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 1633 (1999).

Trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings to the companies in a former employee’s action alleging violations of O.C.G.A. § 34-7-2 because the employee did not file an action claiming that a forfeiture clause in a stock incentive plan constituted a violation of wage requirements within the relevant twoyear statute of limitations provided by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22, and the action was therefore time barred. Milhollin v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 272 Ga. App. 267, 612 S.E.2d 72, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 264 (2005). Federal Civil Rights Act actions. - O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 applies under § 1981 of the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Freeman v. Motor Convoy, Inc., 700 F.2d 1339, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 29536 (11th Cir. 1983). Since the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, does not contain its own statute of limitations, it is well settled that the period of limitations to be used is the most analogous one provided by state law. The applicable limitations period for first amendment and due process claims is not the six-month period provided by O.C.G.A. § 45-19-36 for filing an administrative complaint for unlawful discrimination committed by a public employer; the most analogous limitations period provided by Georgia law for these claims appears to be either the one provided by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 (enforcement of statutory rights) or the one provided by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 (injuries to person or reputation). Cook v. Ashmore, 579 F. Supp. 78, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20170 (N.D. Ga. 1984). Appropriate Georgia state statute of limitations to be borrowed in a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 (rights under statutes), not O.C.G.A. § 45-19-36 (unlawful labor practice). Solomon v. Hardison, 746 F.2d 699, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17132 (11th Cir. 1984). Appropriate state statute of limitations to be “borrowed” in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22. East Cent. Health Dist. v. Brown, 752 F.2d 615, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28064 (11th Cir. 1985).

Recovery for Wages, Overtime, and Other Employment Issues Action based on common-law grounds not within this section. - Action based on complaint setting forth alternative claims based on express contract and quantum meruit, involving rights recognized under common law and codified from common law, is not action “for the recovery of wages” within meaning of this section, which has reference to rights arising solely from statute. Bass v. Hilts S. Equip. Co., 151 Ga. App. 883, 261 S.E.2d 787, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2725 (1979), dismissed, Hilts Southern Equipment Co. v. Bass, 245 Ga. 591, 267 S.E.2d 623, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 868 (1980). Action by retired teachers regarding amount of benefits under employment contract. - As a class of retirees had a right to retirement pay from the Teachers Retirement System of Georgia that arose from their contracts of employment and not from a statutory right, the six-year limitations period of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24 applicable to contract matters was controlling; the 20-year limitations period of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 was not the correct limitations period to apply in the circumstances. Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Plymel, 296 Ga. App. 839, 676 S.E.2d 234, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 172 (2009). Employment discrimination action is governed by two-year limitation period provided under this section. Carter v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 392 F. Supp. 494, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6564 (S.D. Ga. 1974). In a suit for wages by municipal employees seeking recovery as authorized by a municipal ordinance, the action must be brought within two years. City of Atlanta v. Adams, 256 Ga. 620, 351 S.E.2d 444, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 536 (1987). Federal civil rights action for back pay. - When federal laws create rights to back pay as part of general remedial relief, this section applies. United States v. Georgia Power Co., 474 F.2d 906, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11611 (5th Cir. 1973). Two-year period of limitations provided by this section, and not alternative 20year period, governs portion of federal

Recovery for Wages, Overtime, and Other Employment Issues (Cont’d) civil rights suits regarding recovery of back pay. Stroud v. Delta Airlines, 392 F. Supp. 1184, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13402 (N.D. Ga. 1975), aff’d, Stroud v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 544 F.2d 892, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10714 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, Stroud v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 434 U.S. 844, 98 S. Ct. 146, 54 L. Ed. 2d 110, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 3077 (1977). This section may bar recovery of back pay in actions brought by federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC v. C & D Sportswear Corp., 398 F. Supp. 300, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12069 (M.D. Ga. 1975). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint for recovery of back pay is a private action and is thus bound by this section, the applicable state statute of limitations. EEOC v. Metropolitan Atlanta Girls’ Club, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 1006, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14330 (N.D. Ga. 1976); EEOC v. Upjohn Corp., 445 F. Supp. 635, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12476 (N.D. Ga. 1977). Two-year limitations period under this section is applicable to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Roberts v. H.W. Ivey Constr. Co., 408 F. Supp. 622, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15057, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15415 (N.D. Ga. 1975); Harris v. Anaconda Aluminum Co., 479 F. Supp. 11, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13340 (N.D. Ga. 1979). When actions brought under federal civil rights statutes are seeking back pay as part of general remedial relief, this section, which governs actions for unpaid wages, applies. Grimes v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 480 F. Supp. 1381, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7899 (N.D. Ga. 1979). Federal civil rights claim for back pay is not barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 since the plaintiff first exhausted the plaintiff’s state administrative remedies, the statute of limitations being tolled from the date the plaintiff begins to pursue the plaintiff’s state administrative remedies until the date of the final decision of the Georgia Supreme Court. Brown v. Ledbetter, 569 F. Supp. 170, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18151 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

Action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging plaintiff’s former employer wrongfully denied the plaintiff severance pay and certain reemployment assistance allegedly given to other employees because of the plaintiff’s race had to be filed within two years after the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that the alleged discrimination occurred. Greason v. Southeastern R.R. Associated Bureaus, 650 F. Supp. 1, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27531 (N.D. Ga. 1986), aff’d, Greason v. Southeastern R.R., 813 F.2d 410, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 2537 (11th Cir. 1987). Limitations periods of O.C.G.A. § 93-22 are not tolled by the pendency of a Title VII employment discrimination charge. Calloway v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 642 F. Supp. 663, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21887 (M.D. Ga. 1986), dismissed without op., 831 F.2d 1069, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 13233 (11th Cir. 1987). Employment discrimination actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 are governed by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22. Calloway v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 642 F. Supp. 663, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21887 (M.D. Ga. 1986), dismissed without op., 831 F.2d 1069, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 13233 (11th Cir. 1987). In an employment discrimination action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the 20year period of limitation of O.C.G.A. § 93-22 applies to claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and the two-year period of limitation applies to claims for damages. Stafford v. Muscogee County Bd. of Educ., 688 F.2d 1383, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24828 (11th Cir. 1982). There is no relevant federal statute of limitation for 42 U.S.C. § 1981 actions, so the controlling period is that stated in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22, the most appropriate one provided by state law. Evans v. Meadow Steel Prods., Inc., 572 F. Supp. 250, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12823 (N.D. Ga. 1983). Two-year limitations period for recovery of wages specified in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 applies to federal employment discrimination claims for back pay, and the 20-year limitations period to enforce individual statutory rights applies to federal employment discrimination claims for equitable relief. Mack v. W.R. Grace Co., 578 F.

Supp. 626, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12776 (N.D. Ga. 1983); Buffington v. General Time Corp., 677 F. Supp. 1186, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 324 (M.D. Ga. 1988). Employment discrimination actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 most closely resemble state-law “suits for the enforcement of rights accruing to individuals under statutes” and therefore are governed by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22. Howard v. Roadway Express, Inc., 726 F.2d 1529, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24621 (11th Cir. 1984). Municipal employees. - Limitation of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 applies to actions for wages brought by municipal employees pursuant to municipal ordinances; the trial court correctly determined that a portion of a mechanic’s wage claims were time barred pursuant to § 9-3-22. Willis v. City of Atlanta, 265 Ga. App. 640, 595 S.E.2d 339, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 214 (2004). When section begins to run for EEOC complaint. - When Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint seeks recovery of back pay, this section begins to run from last act of discrimination. EEOC v. Metropolitan Atlanta Girls’ Club, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 1006, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14330 (N.D. Ga. 1976). Filing of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge tolls statute of limitations. Freeman v. Motor Convoy, Inc., 409 F. Supp. 1100, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14890 (N.D. Ga. 1975), aff’d, 700 F.2d 1339, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 29536 (11th Cir. 1983). Limitations period for EEOC complaint is tolled from filing of charge with EEOC until notice is given the charging party that conciliation efforts have failed. EEOC v. Metropolitan Atlanta Girls’ Club, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 1006, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14330 (N.D. Ga. 1976). This section does not bar Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from seeking injunctive relief. EEOC v. C & D Sportswear Corp., 398 F. Supp. 300, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12069 (M.D. Ga. 1975). Action seeking to recover reasonable value of services, less credit for partial payment in form of reduced rent-

als, clearly came under four-year limitation of former Code 1933, § 3-706 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-25), and was not an action “for the recovery of wages” under former Code 1933, § 3-704 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22). Parks v. Brissey, 114 Ga. App. 563, 151 S.E.2d 896, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 850 (1966). Claims under federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act. - O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 governed employees’ claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., for backpay, front pay, and reinstatement. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 865 F.2d 1237, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 1809 (11th Cir. 1989). Action by migrant farm workers. - In a class action in which migrant farm workers’ state law breach of contract claims against farmers were in reality wages or contract for wages set by statute, farmers’ motion to dismiss the state law claims was granted as to claims before 2004, as they were barred by the two-year statute of limitations in O.C.G.A. § 9-322. Antonio-Candelaria v. Gibbs Farms, Inc., No. 1:06-CV-39, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16295 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2008). Plaintiffs, who were Mexican temporary farm workers, filed a breach of contract claim against defendant employer, alleging the employer violated the terms of an immigration clearance order, which promised compliance with all employ-ment-related law and reimbursement for certain expenses and payment of wages on a weekly basis, the six-year statute of limitations for simple contracts, provided by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24, applied to such claims, rather than the two-year limitations period of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22 as to payment of wages because regulations governing the worker program expressly stated that the job clearance order created a contract between the employer and the worker, thus invoking the six-year statute of limitations specified in § 9-3-24. Ramos-Barrientos v. Bland, 728 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22921 (S.D. Ga. 2010). Action against labor pool. - Action for claims under O.C.G.A. §§ 34-7-2 and 34-7-3 which accrued more than two years prior to the filing of the action was barred by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22. Sakas v. Settle

Recovery for Wages, Overtime, and Other Employment Issues (Cont’d) Down Enters., Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3839 (N.D. Ga. 2000). State court judge’s action for unpaid compensation. - Trial court erred in finding that all of a state court judge’s claims to recover compensation under state law, O.C.G.A. § 15-7-22, a local law, 2006 Ga. Laws 206, and a county ordi-

nance, were barred by laches; the judge’s claims were subject to the two-year limitations period in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22, meaning the judge could pursue claims on or after October 6, 2015; however, the judge was not entitled to mandamus because the judge had received all the compensation to which the judge was entitled. Cowen v. Clayton County, 306 Ga. 698, 832 S.E.2d 819, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 594 (2019).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, § 74 et seq. ALR. Servant’s right to compensation for extra work or overtime, 25 A.L.R. 218; 107 A.L.R. 705. When cause of action between master and servant deemed to be upon a liability created by statute within contemplation of statute of limitations, 104 A.L.R. 462. Conflict of laws as to period of limitation to enforce stockholders’ statutory liability, 143 A.L.R. 1442. Statute of limitations applicable to action to recover minimum wage, overtime compensation, or liquidated damages under Fair Labor Standards Act, 157 A.L.R. 545; 162 A.L.R. 237.

Action by passenger against carrier for personal injuries as based on contract or on tort, with respect to application of statutes of limitation, 20 A.L.R.2d 331. What statute of limitations is applicable to a damage action under federal civil rights acts, 98 A.L.R.2d 1160. When does cause of action accrue, for purposes of statute of limitations, against action based upon encroachment of building or other structure upon land of another, 12 A.L.R.3d 1265. Accrual of cause of action and tolling of limitation period of § 6 of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (45 U.S.C. § 56), 16 A.L.R.3d 637. Reductions to back pay awards under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USCS § 2000e et seq.), 135 A.L.R. Fed 1.