Thank you for your help

First of all, I do not understand why people continue to work when they're not getting paid. This makes absolutely no sense.

If you take advantage of your legal rights to either file a claim with the ICA or file a civil suit, and you are fired because of it, then I see a wrongful termination cause in your future. It is a violation of public policy to fire an employee for availing themselves of a legal right.

Unless you have an enforceable employment contract that addresses the terms of your separation of employment, no employer can force you to continue working for them. Is there such a contract?

What does the fact that he is an illegal alien (and how do you know that for sure?) have to do with your not getting paid? Are you planning on reporting him to the USCIS (formerly, the INS)?

Relative to any penalties or fines for violation of the state wage payment law, if you file with the ICA and the agency orders him to pay you, any such penalties or fines would be payable to the state, not to you. If you file a civil suit, you can include court courts and you may be able to claim 1.5 or double damages (you'd have to speak with a local attorney about the details), but not if you file only with the ICA.

I normally recommend employees go with the state or federal DOL for claims first, but in your case, with the amount of money you're talking about, I'd be meeting with an attorney regarding a civil suit.

Thank you for your help

There is nothing you have said which remotely suggests wrongful termination. Employees willing to work for no money are not a legally protected class of workers.

Time to move on. File a wage claim for any unpaid wages or talk to attorney, but Elvis has definately left the building.

Patty is right talk to an attorney your talking big bucks Arizona has tough penalties on employers in court that don't pay wages:

A.R.S 23-355. Action by employee to recover wages; amount of recovery

If an employer, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, shall fail to pay wages due any employee, such employee may recover in a civil action against an employer or former employer an amount which is treble the amount of the unpaid wages.

Treble damages translates to three times the owed wage ,for example the employer owes $1000. If he goes to trial,and loses the court will order $3000
$1000 X 3 = $3000 A.R.S 23-355 imposes personal liability on the business owner, thus piercing the corporate veil. So if the owner has personal assets there may be a source of money beyond the corporate insolvency.
Forget the D.O.L thats a waste of time,this place sounds like a fly by night outfit as it is. Administrative agencies are slow on good day.
JoeC

Thank you for your help

I would have a very good "wrongful termination" case since he owes me money. Also

No, you have a good claim for unpaid wages. "Wrongful termination" is legally unrelated to unpaid wages. Legally, wrong termination is something like terminating a person who is a member of legally protected class such as race, religion or national origin because they are a member of the protected class. Being owed wages is not a legally protected class.

The following webpointer is to a pretty good article on "wrongful termination".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_termination

In Arizona you do have a cause for wrongful termination. The thing is this outfit seems so fly by night just getting back wages may be difficult enough. You need to contact an attorney like last month.
JoeC

Thank you for your help

Arizona Revised Statute section 23-1501, commonly referred to as the Employment Protection Act (EPA), which provides for the tort of wrongful termination in violation of public policy where an employer has violated an Arizona statute and the statute does not provide a remedy to an employee for violation of the statute23-1501.3.(b) The employer has terminated the employment relationship of an employee in violation of a statute of this state. If the statute provides a remedy to an employee for a violation of the statute, the remedies provided to an employee for a violation of the statute are the exclusive remedies for the violation of the statute or the public policy set forth in or arising out of the statute, including the following:
(i) The civil rights act prescribed in title 41, chapter 9.

(ii) The occupational safety and health act prescribed in chapter 2, article 10 of this title.

(iii) The statutes governing the hours of employment prescribed in chapter 2 of this title.

(iv) The agricultural employment relations act prescribed in chapter 8, article 5 of this title.

All definitions and restrictions contained in the statute also apply to any civil action based on a violation of the public policy arising out of the statute. If the statute does not provide a remedy to an employee for the violation of the statute, the employee shall have the right to bring a tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of the public policy set forth in the statute.Reading that its difficult to see if treble damages preclude a wrongful termination suite,since treble damages is the remedy for unpaid wages. Your lawyer will advice,on the best route.
JoeC

Thank you for your help

The state DOES provide a remedy for unpaid wages. It's just not as good a remedy as you could get in court IF you win.

OTOH, something just caught my eye. You're only working about an hour a day? And you expect him to continue paying your full salary? When you DO work, what do you do?

When I mentioned, "would he be forced to keep me as an employee if I won the suit", I meant if I sued and won, but wanted to continue working for him, it seems like there would be friction with that relationship. So if I did win, and then stayed on his payroll for another few months and then he let me go because he was upset with me, Would I still have a good "solid" case for wrongful termination? Typically how much can one reasonable expect to sue for in a wrongful termination case?




What reasonable person wants to continue to work for someone that has a long, distinguished history of not paying?

Honestly? It sounds like you are wanting to get paid for doing absolutely nothing, even if that means continuing to "work" for this person knowing there is a strong possiblity that the relationship would be tense and hoping that he fires you so you can sue.

Just get the money that is actually owed and find another job. :rolleyes:

Spoken like someone who has never toiled in the workforce,many small construction company don't pay until the customer pays the contractor.
In my younger days I worked in many senirios similiar to this,latest we ever got paid was a week.
It's easy to say things like that,untill your in someone elses shoes who's life goes well beyond a short post.
JoeC

Spoken like someone who has never toiled in the workforce,many small construction company don't pay until the customer pays the contractor.
It's easy to say things like that,untill your in someone elses shoes who's life goes well beyond a short post.
JoeC

The law is the law, Joe, you know that. Not all construction employers are like that.

I don't have to be a mother to know that I don't throw children off the bridge. :rolleyes:

Spoken like someone who has never toiled in the workforce,many small construction company don't pay until the customer pays the contractor.
In my younger days I worked in many senirios similiar to this,latest we ever got paid was a week.
It's easy to say things like that,untill your in someone elses shoes who's life goes well beyond a short post.
JoeC

Never toiled in the workforce? Really?

Hmmm, I guess I just imagined those 16 years of work. :rolleyes:

Give one legitimate reason someone, who admittedly only works one hour a day and is having to consider the possibility of suing to get $20,000 owed, would ask about wrongful termination if he gets fired after going back to work for the person that has not paid him.

The law is the law, Joe, you know that. Not all construction employers are like that.

I don't have to be a mother to know that I don't throw children off the bridge. :rolleyes:
The employer in most case are well meaning,they don't deliberately make payroll late. The employees in most cases are sympathetic to the employers dilemma.
Laws are only enforceable in court I know that as well. The employer is typically small the crews are typically small. There are so many variables on what can happen, bigger large construction company's don't run into the same problems that the little guys do.
Here something the Space needle in Seattle got built in the 60's sometime the main contractor had to sue the City to get paid,they finally paid him 91.
Granted all his employees were paid,but he lost his business. Things don't always happen like their are legally supposed to. If they did McGruff wouldn't be here,taking a bite out of them. ARRrr wolf,wolf.
JoeC

And I'll bet that contractor in Seattle was a vendor, not an employee. The requirements are different.

Thank you for your help

But you didn't answer my question. When you ARE working, what do you do?

And JoeC sees a lawsuit in everything. :rolleyes: