Publications

On March 31, 2026, the Connecticut Appellate Court handed down its decision in Farias v. Rodriguez, a case with practical significance for Connecticut employers in the hospitality industry.

Background

The plaintiff in the case, Daniel Farias, was employed as a bartender by two Connecticut-based Puerto Vallarta restaurants from 2011 until 2022. On December 6, 2022, Farias brought a two-count putative class action suit against Puerto Vallarta, on behalf of himself and other Puerto Vallarta servers and bartenders employed during the class period, for violations of Connecticut wage laws and regulations. In Count One, Farias alleged that Puerto Vallarta violated Conn. Agencies Regs. 31-62-E3 (old E3) by failing to record properly the amount claimed as credit in the wage record for him and other servers on a weekly basis. According to Farias, rather than obtain weekly “tip statements” from servers to ensure they received sufficient wages to satisfy the tip credit, Puerto Vallarta maintained a common practice of taking the full tip credit against the wages of their servers and bartenders, thereby routinely paying them well below the Connecticut minimum wage.

Count Two asserted that Puerto Vallarta violated Conn. Agencies Regs. 31-62-E4 (old E4) by failing to segregate servers’ nonservice duties. As with most restaurants, Puerto Vallarta routinely assigned servers and bartenders nonservice duties such as setting up the restaurant, general cleaning, stocking, brewing coffee, and filling ice bins, among other tasks. Farias contended that Puerto Vallarta was obligated to segregate time spent on nonservice duties for wage purposes, such that servers and bartenders should have been paid the full minimum wage for that time rather than having their wages lowered through application of the tip credit.

The trial court found Count One legally insufficient, holding that the recordkeeping requirements in the old E3 were directory and therefore did not support a private cause of action. Count Two was deemed deficient because it was based on a regulation that had been repealed on September 24, 2020 and the plain language of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-60(d)(4) provided that “all actions filed after September 24, 2022, must be adjudicated pursuant to Section 31-60-2.”  Farias appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court.

Holding

On appeal, the Court quickly disposed of Farias’s claim that the old E3 supported a private cause of action for a recordkeeping violation. Reviewing its prior decision in Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC, the Court reiterated that the old E3 is directory and, therefore, noncompliance with its provisions does not invalidate the tip credit and give rise to a private cause of action.

Turning to the claim that P.A. 22-134 (now codified as Section 31-60(d)(4)) was not intended to retroactively take away substantive rights under the minimum wage act, the Court concluded that while Section 31-60(d)(4) was intended to operate prospectively by applying to all claims filed after September 24, 2022, nothing in the language of P.A. 22-134 signaled that the legislature meant to exempt previously accrued, but not yet commenced, causes of actions from its purview. In this way, Section 31-60(d)(4) only seeks to ensure that after September 24, 2022, relevant claims are brought pursuant to the updated regulatory scheme at Section 31-60-2, but this in no way eliminated Farias’ ability to present a claim under the law. In rendering its decision, the Court examined Section 31-60(d)(4)’s language that any claim “filed after September 24, 2022, shall be adjudicated, solely, under section 31-60-2,” and reasoned that the term “solely” constituted a clear directive for claims to be adjudicated under Section 31-60-2. As a result, because Farias filed his claim after the mandatory September 24, 2022 deadline provided in Section 31-60(d)(4) and his claims alleged violations of the old regulations, the Court affirmed the trial court’s holding that the Complaint was legally insufficient.

Last, the Court addressed Farias’ argument that P.A. 22-134 violated his state constitutional rights to due process by retroactively changing his substantive rights. The Court reiterated that the law had no retroactive effect but noted for the sake of argument that even if it had, Farias had no vested property right in his purely statutory cause of action which was not commenced until after P.A. 22-134 was passed. Farias’ argument was further undercut by the fact that the legislature had provided a four-month grace period in 2022 for asserting violations of the old E3 and old E4; however, Farias failed to file his accrued claims within the four-month window.

Considerations for Connecticut Employers

Connecticut employers in the hospitality industry should be aware that while the former E3 and E4 regulations did not provide a private cause of action, the new regulations under Section 31-60-2 do. Consequently, it is more important than ever for employers to maintain detailed wage records. Section 31-60-2 specifically requires employers to record the amount claimed as a tip credit on a daily, weekly, or bi-weekly basis. To ensure compliance, employers should obtain regular written statements from tipped employees documenting their tip wages.