You Asked for It, You Got It: No Wage Rebate Act Violations Where Employee Agrees to Payment Method

By Kate Acheson

In LaCoursiere v. CamWest Development, Inc., the Washington Appeals Court dismissed an employee’s claims under the Wage Rebate Act (“WRA”), RCW 49.52.  The employee, Shaun LaCoursiere, claimed his employer, CamWest Development, violated the WRA by depositing a portion of his bonuses in an investment account and by reimbursing only 60 percent – the vested portion – of the investment account upon his termination. 

The WRA is an anti-kickback statute prohibiting the employer from recollecting any part of wages paid to an employee.  To be protected under the WRA, a “wage” must be distributed to the employee and then the employer must collect a “rebate” from that paid wage.  In addition, the WRA only protects employees who have not “knowingly submitted” to an employer’s wage rebate practices.

Here, the Court of Appeals found that the bonuses paid to LaCoursiere by CamWest Development were not wages.  LaCoursiere received discretionary bonuses from 2005-2007, but no bonus in 2008.  He knew CamWest had no obligation to provide bonuses.  Furthermore, the bonuses he received were not regular enough to create an expectation that they would continue.  Thus, LaCoursiere’s bonuses, which were discretionary and irregular, were not “wages” but were merely gratuities.

The Court of Appeals further found that, even if the bonuses had amounted to wages which were rebated, LaCoursiere knowingly submitted to the rebate because CamWest paid LaCoursiere precisely as he agreed to be paid.  Under his employment contract, LaCoursiere agreed to participate in a discretionary bonus structure.  Thus,

“even if the [investment group] bonus structure amounts to a prohibited rebate of wages, LaCoursiere knowingly submitted to the violation, and under the WRA, he cannot receive the benefits of the WRA.”

Under his agreed-upon bonus structure, any bonus would be allocated 44% to him as direct payment and 56% into his capital account with an independent investment group.  Those contributions were subject to both a vesting schedule and a sell-back provision (requiring a member sell all his vested shares back to the group upon leaving employment with CamWest).  When LaCoursiere was terminated, his membership interest was only 60% vested.  So, when he was reimbursed for 60% of his membership interest he was paid exactly according to contract and is not entitled to protection under the WRA.