In the early 2000s, a person joined a start-up where they agreed on a salary with no paid over-time, an evaluation in three months, and then annually. The salary was mediocre for the work, but the work itself was extremely interesting and challenging. The person felt that even if the finances were so-so, they would learn a lot of skills that would be useful in the future.
The Talk of Back-pay and Paid Over-time
After three years and having ten decent clients and a bunch of clients trailing, and money rolling in, the talk turned to back-pay and paid over-time, plus compensating for past over-time. At that point, around $50k in OT had been accrued, which is a lot.
It Can’t Be Back-Pay
Legally it couldn’t be back-pay, so the talk was always of a discretionary bonus. Everyone was okay with this, and this was discussed in writing, via company emails, so the person felt secure and that no bad will was in play. The person felt the company should be able to afford the payment, equally they’d happily settle for equity at a discount (which is legally possible there) if cash-flow was an issue.
The Offer of Equity and the Resignation
The discussions about back-pay, possible equity, and now started to drag on, and the person was getting irked by this. In the end, the person was made an offer of equity, which meant the company valuation was far beyond anything reasonable, in the hundreds of millions, and they’d get a miniscule stake (less than 0.01% of a company with nine employees and a projected annual turn-over of around 2 million). It was a F-U of sorts to stiff them out of money, and they didn’t want to take that lying down. The person was furious and handed in their resignation the day the offer was made.
The Demand for Back-pay
The CTO went into panic-mode because the CEO had refused an updated contract, and the person was still on a one-month notice period, plus they had a lot of untaken paid leave. Basically, it meant they were walking out right then and there. The next day, the person sent an official, registered, letter requesting their overtime/back-pay and received a negative response, which they followed up with another, detailed, demand. This was also rejected because the bonus was discretionary and “there is no over-time.” However, the person sought legal advice and understood that they didn’t have a leg to stand on if they weren’t willing to pay for an attorney. As the liability in such matters was firmly and 100% on the employer, the person was willing to take the risk.
The Wait and the Demand
Going to a lawyer was very rare in those parts back then, so companies didn’t generally expect this outcome. When going through the applicable laws with the attorney, the person noticed there was a limitation of seven years. So, while their attorney was laying out what to do in order to get them their money in as little as a few weeks, they asked what if they waited until it was six years and 11 months after the transgression and then filed, demanding interest?
The Interest
The person wanted this because the law stated that back-pay is due at a 9% APR ABOVE the base-rate (3.25% at that time), accrued daily, for every day past the due date. They were looking at ~12-12.5% compound daily APR. The risk was that the company would fold in that time, but they decided to take that risk. They sent one final letter stating that they expected “all the owed and accrued amounts to-date” to be paid immediately. Of course, nothing happened.
The Lawsuit and the Victory
For the next few years, life rolled on. The company did grow and become a known player in the area. When the time came, the person found an attorney and started the case. They had copies of all the communications, copies of the registered letters and responses. The back-pay demanded now, including interest, was $112k.
Fixed Penalties
What they didn’t know was that in addition to this, there were fixed penalties for each instruction to perform uncompensated over-time. The total demand was something like $135k. To say that the CEO, who was still CEO, lost his mind would be an understatement. The person got a very verbally abusive phone call, which they dutifully recorded (as it wasn’t completely unexpected) and was added to the filing. The CEO fought, or tried to, but when the judge heard the phone call, they took an immediate dim view. Reading through all the communication just put more nails in the defense’s coffin.
The Judge’s Ruling
The judge just ruled and instructed the company to pay “immediately and without delay” and also ordered the company to pay all the person’s legal costs. They also got a full audit from the department of labor.
The Company Pays Up
The company paid up a week later, and the person received their back-pay and interest. To add insult to injury, the evening of the court’s decision, the CEO apparently got very drunk and crashed his car into another vehicle while drunk. He got a DUI conviction and lost his driving license for half a year, and his insurance refused to pay out for the damages to his vehicle (brand new Mercedes S-class) as he was drunk. All in all, it was a glorious day for the person.
The Internet Responded
One commenter responded, “Is it just petty greediness? Even then, wouldn’t it be in your selfish interest to let him be satisfied with the work to bring in more cash flow?”
Another person wrote, “Good managers are hard to find but know when their employee is worth keeping. The CEO was not a good manager type.”
Someone else added their thoughts and said, “Seems like he’d been given written statements by the company indicating they’d like to pay him overtime/backpay due to good performance. If they hadn’t done that then the OP wouldn’t be entitled to it. That’s my take anyway.”
Another persons thoughts were, “Beware the anger of a patient man INDEED.”
HIS HOA DEMANDS THE REMOVAL OF SECURITY CAMERAS: THEIR OVERSIGHT TRIGGERS A LEGAL BACKLASH, ENTRAPPING THEM IN A RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE LOOPHOLE!
A couple bought surveillance cameras to monitor their property, which inadvertently waged a costly war with their HOA.
She Demands Her Brother Share His Daughter’s Inheritance With Her Stepdaughter – Who Wasn’t Bequeathed Anything!
When it comes to family dynamics, few things can stir up emotions, quite like inheritance disputes. A contentious situation has emerged in an unfolding saga that tests the bonds of blood and challenges the concept of fairness. At the center of this narrative stands a sister who adamantly demands her brother to share his daughter’s inheritance with her stepdaughter, who, to her dismay, was not bequeathed anything.
HE ISSUES AN ULTIMATUM: IN-LAWS MUST VACATE OR HIS DAUGHTER’S DOOR REMAINS LOCKED IN A HEART-WRENCHING POWER STRUGGLE
OP’s brother-in-law, Sammy, moved in with his twin daughters, Olivia and Sloane, after losing his home due to a divorce. OP’s daughter, Zoey, is 16 years old and gets along fine with her cousins, but they do not respect her privacy.