Skip Navigation

6310 Hillside Court
Suite 160
Columbia, MD 21046

P. 410-290-0707

111 South Calvert Street

Suite 2700

Baltimore, MD 21202

P. 410-962-1199

Aronson & Co. v. Fetridge-Wage and Hour Law Analysis

Maryland appellate court applies Maryland Wage and Hour law to corporate officer and shareholder

          

           In a case of first impression, in Aronson & Co. v. Fetridge, the Maryland Court of Special appeals, applied the Maryland Wage and Hour Law to a high level employee/owner.  “In this case we are asked to examine, for the first time, the applicability of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law to a claim against his former firm by a Certified Public Accountant who had been not only an employee, but a shareholder, president, and managing officer of the firm.” Opinion p. 2

            In the prior case of Stevenson v. Branch Banking & Trust Corp., 159 Md. App. 620 (2004), termination compensation due a former employee was determined not to be a wage under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law.  In Stevenson the Court of Special Appeals determined that “the provision conditioned the employee’s termination compensation on compliance with a covenant not to compete in a manner that removed the remuneration from the scope of the Wage Law.” Opinion p. 14.  The termination compensation was a quid pro quo and not a wage.

            The Court examined its prior decision in Stevenson and compared the contract between Aronson & Co. and Fetridge.  “In the event that Fetridge violated the covenant in the three years after leaving the firm, Fetridge was required in Section 10(c) to pay to Aronson an amount equal to thirty percent of his or his new employer’s fee collections from Aronson’s former clients. Section 10(d) of the Employment Agreement then provided that Aronson “shall have the right to offset against [TEC] payments it owe[d] pursuant to Section 9(c) any amounts owed by [Fetridge] pursuant to this Section 10[,]” the covenant not to compete.”  Opinion p. 5.

            The Court drew a distinction between this contract and the prior decision in Stevenson and held that the compensation due to Fetridge was in fact a wage.  Fetridge was entitled to compensation even if he did compete.  The amount he would receive was simple subject to a set-off.  “Aronson’s “right to offset against [TEC] payments it owes” for Fetridge’s violation of the Covenant Not to Compete is of a different nature than the condition on the termination compensation in Stevenson. Fetridge’s right to receive TEC was not conditioned on his compliance with the covenant not to compete.”  Opinion p. 14.

____

BTLG Attorneys At Law

Talk to a lawyer

Bold labels are required.

News from BTLG:

Voting Leave
Maryland employers have an obligation to provide paid leave for employees to vote under certain circumstances
Maryland’s #MeToo Bill – New Reporting Requirements
In the wake of the nation’s #MeToo movement, Maryland now joins the ranks of other states, such as Illinois and New York, that have adopted stricter sexual harassment policies.
Maryland Minimum Wage Increase 2018
Beginning on July 1, 2018, Maryland’s minimum wage will increase from $9.25 to $10.10 an hour.
General Data Protection Regulation
On May 25, 2018, the EU's General Data Protection Regulation went in to effect, regulating any business that collects or processes the personal data of EU residents
More BTLG News