Appellate Court Limits “Costs” Recovery in Wage Cases

A new decision from the state Appellate Court, Paniccia v. Success Village Apartments, Inc., delivers some clarity for employers facing wage claims under Connecticut General Statutes § 31-72. The bottom line? When employees win wage cases, the “costs” they can recover are limited to statutory taxable costs—not every litigation expense they incurred.

The Background: A Wage Case Victory Followed by a Costs Dispute

David Paniccia sued his former employer for unpaid wages and ultimately prevailed, recovering $172,969.90 in damages. Under § 31-72, successful plaintiffs in wage cases can recover “twice the full amount of such wages, with costs and such reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court.”

Paniccia got his double damages and $225,000 in attorney’s fees. But then he asked for an additional $10,821.78 in costs—including filing fees, deposition transcripts, process server fees, parking, photocopying, focus group expenses, and various other litigation expenses.

The trial court said no, limiting Paniccia’s cost recovery to statutory taxable costs under General Statutes §§ 52-257 and 52-260. Rather than take the overall victory, Paniccia appealed, arguing that “costs” under § 31-72 should include all reasonable and necessary litigation expenses. (No doubt the appeal cost more than the costs, but that’s an issue for another day.)

The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s limitation, holding that recoverable costs under § 31-72 are limited to those specifically enumerated in the statutory cost provisions.

The court’s reasoning relied on binding precedent: First, the court looked to Miller v. Guimaraes (involving CUTPA claims), where it held that trial courts have no authority to award expert witness fees as taxable costs unless specifically listed in § 52-260. The same principle applies here—costs are limited to what the statutes specifically authorize.

Second, the court cited Arnone v. Enfield (a retaliatory discharge case under § 31-51m), where it rejected an identical argument that limiting costs to statutory provisions would render the word “costs” superfluous. The court held that judicial discretion to award costs is “discretionary within the bounds of the general provisions.”

Paniccia argued that if § 31-72’s reference to “costs” just means statutory taxable costs under §§ 52-257 and 52-260, then the legislature’s inclusion of the word “costs” would be meaningless. The court rejected this, noting that without § 31-72’s authorization, Practice Book § 18-19 would prohibit any cost recovery in bench trials. So the word “costs” isn’t superfluous—it authorizes recovery that otherwise wouldn’t be available.

What This Means for Employers (and Employment Law Attorneys)

Although this decision isn’t going to make a big difference in how these cases are litigated and defended against, it does have some ramifications for employers going forward.

A little smaller exposure beyond the merits. When you lose a wage case, you’ll face double damages and attorney’s fees, but the additional “costs” won’t include every expense opposing counsel incurred. Deposition transcripts covered in § 52-257? Yes. Parking and photocopying? No.

Most requested items are already in the statute. The court noted that most of what Paniccia requested—deposition transcripts, court fees, process server fees—are specifically covered in § 52-257. Plaintiffs can still recover these by filing a proper bill of costs, but they’re limited to the statutory amounts.

No fishing expeditions on costs. Plaintiffs can’t simply submit every litigation expense and call it “costs.” Focus groups, extensive legal research databases, courier services—these don’t fall within the statutory definitions and won’t be recoverable as costs.

While this won’t change your approach to defending wage claims on the merits, it does provide clarity on what you’re actually exposed to if you lose. The wage statute’s “costs” provision sounds broad, but it’s constrained by well-established statutory limits.

One interesting footnote: Paniccia never filed a bill of costs for the items he could have recovered under § 52-257. The court suggested he could have obtained some relief by following proper procedure—a reminder that even successful plaintiffs need to follow the rules to maximize their recovery.

For employers, Paniccia is a small victory in controlling litigation costs. When you’re already facing double damages and substantial attorney’s fees in wage cases, though, it’s little solace that those additional costs will be a little less.