Scacchi v . Dycom Indus. CV-03-341-JD 01/09/04
P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Susan Scacchi
v. Civil N o . 03-341-JD
Opinion N o . 2004 DNH 008
Dycom Industries, Inc., et a l .
O R D E R
The plaintiff, Susan Scacchi, brings claims against her
former employer, alleging that she was underpaid because of
her gender. The defendants move to dismiss her claim brought
under New Hampshire’s Equal Pay A c t , Revised Statutes
Annotated (“RSA”) § 275:27, et seq., and her wage claim under
RSA 275:42, et seq., as untimely filed. Scacchi concedes that
her state Equal Pay Act claim is untimely. She contends,
however, that the three-year statute of limitations provided
in RSA 508:4 applies to her wage claim and that it was timely
filed.
RSA 275:42, et seq., is part of the chapter providing
protective legislation for employees. See Galloway v .
Chicago-Soft, Ltd., 142 N.H. 7 5 2 , 760 (1998). Aggrieved
employees may pursue a wage claim with the Department of Labor
pursuant to RSA 275:51,V. Alternatively, employees may bring
an action to recover unpaid wages in any court of competent
jurisdiction pursuant to RSA 275:53. Labor Ready Northeast,
Inc. v . N.H. Dep’t of Labor,
147 N.H. 7 2 1 , 723 (2002).
The defendants assert that the eighteen-month limitation
period provided in RSA 275:51,V, which applies to a wage claim
filed with the Department of Labor, should be construed to
also apply to claims filed in court under RSA 275:53. RSA
275:53 does not provide its own limitations period. Scacchi
contends that the eighteen-month period in RSA 275:51,V does
not apply and that the three-year period provided in RSA 508:4
applies instead. 1
Although the New Hampshire Supreme Court has not
addressed the question of what limitation period should apply
to claims brought under RSA 275:53, the court has stated that
it construes RSA 275:53 “to effectuate the broad purpose of
protecting employees.” Galloway, 142 N.H. at 7 5 9 . Consonant
with that purpose, the court concluded that the attorneys’
fees provision in RSA 273:53,III also applies to actions
brought before the Department under RSA 273:51,V. Id. at 7 6 0 .
Imposing the short limitation period provided in RSA 275:51,V
for administrative actions to court actions brought under RSA
1
RSA 508:4 provides in pertinent part: “Except as
otherwise provided by law, all personal actions, except
actions for slander or libel, may be brought only within 3
years of the act or omission complained of . . . .”
2
275:53 would contravene that statute’s broad purpose of
protecting employees, as found by the New Hampshire Supreme
Court.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has also cautioned, in
the context of wage claims, that it “will not consider what
the legislature might have said or add words that the
legislature did not include.” Labor Ready Northeast, 147 N.H.
at 723 (internal quotation marks omitted). RSA 275:53 does
not provide a limitation period, despite the specific limit
provided in RSA 275:51,V. This court declines to read a
limitation period into the statute that the legislature did
not include and that would not comply with the stated purpose
of the statute.
Therefore, the three-year limitation period provided by
RSA 508:4 applies to Scacchi’s claim in Count IV under RSA
275:53. As such, the claim is not time-barred.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to
dismiss (document n o . 1 8 ) is granted as to the Equal Pay Act
claim in Count II of the plaintiff’s amended complaint but is
denied as to the unpaid wages claim in Count IV.
SO ORDERED.
3
Joseph A . DiClerico, J r .
United States District Judge
January 9, 2004
cc: John E . Friberg J r . , Esquire
Lauren S . Irwin, Esquire
Robert M . Shea, Esquire
4
