Woodford v. HRG Management, LLC

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion
motions and petitions for certification is the “officially
released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is
to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an
opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and
subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut
Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the
State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced
or distributed without the express written permission of
the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial
Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Woodford v. HRG Management, LLC

MICHELLE WOODFORD v. HRG
MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.
(AC 47708)
Suarez, Seeley and Wilson, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff, who had been employed as a server and hostess at restaurants
owned and operated by the defendants, appealed from the trial court’s
judgment granting the defendants’ motion to strike her putative class
action complaint. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the defendants had
improperly deducted tip credits from her earnings and paid her and other
similarly situated employees less than the minimum wage for the performance
of nonservice work under the applicable wage regulations (§ 31-62-E3 et
seq.) in effect in 2015. Held:

The trial court properly granted the defendants’ motion to strike the plain-
tiff’s complaint, as this court had twice previously determined that there was
no private cause of action pursuant to statute (§ 31-68 (a)) for violations of
the recordkeeping requirements in § 31-62-E3 of the 2015 regulations, the
complaint was legally insufficient as it was not premised on the applicable
wage regulation (§ 31-60-2), as required under the legislature’s amendment
(P.A. 22-134) to the statute (§ 31-60) governing actions for violations of
wage laws, P.A. 22-134 did not retroactively take away the plaintiff’s cause
of action, the application of P.A. 22-134 to the plaintiff’s claims did not vio-
late due process, and, because this court’s decision in the companion case of
Farias v. Rodriguez (238 Conn. App. 287) thoroughly resolved the plaintiff’s
claims, this court adopted the reasoning and conclusions in that decision.

Argued November 13, 2025—officially released March 31, 2026

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for the defendants’ alleged
violations of minimum wage laws and regulations, and
for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judi-
cial district of Hartford and transferred to the Complex
Litigation Docket, where the court, Noble, J., granted the
defendants’ motion to strike, and the plaintiff appealed
to this court; thereafter, the court, Noble, J., granted the
plaintiff’s motion for judgment, and the plaintiff filed
an amended appeal; subsequently, this court dismissed
the plaintiff’s original appeal. Affirmed.
Woodford v. HRG Management, LLC

Richard E. Hayber, for the appellant (plaintiff).
James T. Shearin, with whom were Dana M. Hrelic
and, on the brief, Ryan A. O’Donnell, for the appellees
(defendants).

Opinion

SUAREZ, J. This appeal is a companion case to Farias
v. Rodriguez, 238 Conn. App. 287, A.3d (2026), which
we also decide today. The plaintiff, Michelle Woodford,
brought this putative class action1 complaint, individu-
ally and on behalf of others who were similarly situated
as employees of Wood-n-Tap restaurants (Wood-n-Tap),
alleging violations of Connecticut wage laws and regu-
lations. See General Statutes § 31-60;2 see also Regs.,
Conn. State Agencies § 31-62-E1 et seq. (2015) (repealed
September 24, 2020).3 Specifically, the plaintiff alleged
1
Prior to certification as a class pursuant to Practice Book § 9-9, a
complaint alleging claims on behalf of a class is commonly referred to
as a “putative” class action. See, e.g., Del Rio v. Amazon.com Services,
Inc., 354 Conn. 151, 152, 349 A.3d 570 (2026).
2
General Statutes § 31-60 provides in relevant part: “(b) The Labor
Commissioner shall adopt such regulations, in accordance with the provi-
sions of chapter 54, as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes of
this part. Such regulations . . . shall recognize, as part of the minimum
fair wage, gratuities in an amount (1) equal to twenty-nine and three-
tenths per cent, and . . . effective January 1, 2015, and ending on June
30, 2019, equal to thirty-six and eight-tenths per cent of the minimum
fair wage per hour for persons, other than bartenders, who are employed
in the hotel and restaurant industry, including a hotel restaurant, who
customarily and regularly receive gratuities . . . .
“(d) . . . (4) Notwithstanding any other law or regulation, any claim
brought under this subsection, section 31-68 as it relates to gratuities
as part of the minimum wage or section 31-62-E3 of the regulations
of Connecticut state agencies filed after September 24, 2022, shall
be adjudicated, solely, under section 31-60-2 of the regulations of
Connecticut state agencies effective on September 24, 2020, and any
amendments thereto. . . .”
3
The plaintiff’s complaint alleges violations of only §§ 31-62-E3 (old
E3) and 31-62-E4 (old E4) of the 2015 Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies. Following the practice of the parties and the trial court, we
refer to the plaintiff’s claims in counts one and two of her operative
complaint as alleging violations of “old E3” and “old E4,” respectively.
Woodford v. HRG Management, LLC

that the defendants4 violated (1) § 31-62-E35 (old E3)
of the 2015 Regulations of Connecticut State Agen-
cies (2015 regulations) by, inter alia, failing to prop-
erly record the amount claimed as a percentage of the
minimum fair wage (tip credit)6 they would otherwise
be required to pay with respect to each server, and (2) §
31-62-E47 (old E4) of the 2015 regulations by improperly
deducting a tip credit from her earnings and paying her
and other similarly situated employees less than the
4
The plaintiff named HRG Management, LLC; Michael Hamlin; Phillip
Barnett; WNT, LLC; WNT IV, LLC; WNT V, LLC; WNT VI, LLC; WNT
VII, LLC; WNT Hamden, LLC; WNT Farmington, LLC; WNT Newington,
LLC; and 410 Queen Street, Southington Partners, LLC, as defendants
in this action. It is not disputed that these defendants share identical
interests in this appeal. For convenience, we refer to all defendants col-
lectively as the defendants and to the corporate defendants collectively
as the defendant entities. We refer to Hamlin and Barnett collectively
as the individual defendants.
5
Section 31-62-E3 of the 2015 Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies (repealed September 24, 2020)) provided in relevant part:
“Gratuities shall be recognized as constituting a part of the minimum
fair wage when all of the following provisions are complied with . . .
(b) the amount received in gratuities claimed as credit for part of the
minimum fair wage shall be recorded on a weekly basis as a separate item
in the wage record even though payment is made more frequently, and
(c) each employer claiming credit for gratuities as part of the minimum
fair wage paid to any employee shall obtain weekly a statement signed
by the employee attesting that he has received in gratuities the amount
claimed as credit for part of the minimum fair wage. Such statement
shall contain the week ending date of the payroll week for which credit
is claimed. . . .”
6
“A tip credit allows employers [to] take a credit for tips received by a
tipped employee for up to a stated percentage or portion of the minimum
wage. J. Lockhart, Annot., Tips as Wages for Purposes of Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act, 46 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 23, 40, § 2 (2010).” (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Rodriguez v. Kaiaffa, LLC, 337 Conn. 248,
259 n.11, 253 A.3d 13 (2020).
7
Section 31-62-E4 of the 2015 Regulations of Connecticut State Agen-
cies, which was repealed effective September 24, 2020, provided: “If an
employee performs both service and non-service duties, and the time
spent on each is definitely segregated and so recorded, the allowance for
gratuities as permitted as part of the minimum fair wage may be applied
to the hours worked in the service category. If an employee performs
both service and non-service duties and the time spent on each cannot
be definitely segregated and so recorded, or is not definitely segregated
and so recorded, no allowances for gratuities may be applied as part of
the minimum fair wage.”
Woodford v. HRG Management, LLC

minimum wage for the performance of “nonservice”
work.8 The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the
trial court rendered in favor of the defendants follow-
ing its granting of the defendants’ motion to strike.
The issues presented in this appeal are identical to those
presented in Farias. For the reasons stated in Farias,
we conclude that the trial court correctly determined
that (1) General Statutes § 31-689 does not provide a
private cause of action for a recordkeeping violation
under old E3 of the 2015 regulations, (2) No. 22-134
of the 2022 Public Acts (P.A. 22-134)10 did not retro-
8
Effective September 24, 2020, §§ 31-60-2 and 31-62-E3 of the Regu-
lations of Connecticut State Agencies (regulations) were each amended
to provide in relevant part that “the amount received in gratuities
claimed as credit for part of the minimum fair wage shall be recorded
on a daily, weekly, or bi-weekly basis in a wage record, even though pay-
ment is made more frequently . . . .” See Regs., Conn. State Agencies
§§ 31-60-2 (2) and 31-62-E3 (b).
Also effective September 24, 2020, § 31-62-E3a of the Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies was added. Section 31-62-E3a of the regu-
lations changed an employer’s obligation to segregate an employee’s
time for nonservice duties to provide that such time must be segregated
only when a service employee performs nonservice employee duties
for “two hours or more,” or “[f]or more than 20 percent of the service
employee’s shift, whichever is less . . . .” Regs., Conn. State Agencies
§ 31-62-E3a (a) (1) and (2).
The plaintiff does not dispute that she has not alleged any violations
of the 2020 version of E3 contained in the regulations (new E3), or “new
E4,” the latter of which is now codified at § 31-62-E3a of the regula-
tions. See footnote 3 of this opinion.
9
General Statutes § 31-68 (a) (1) provides: “If any employee is paid by
his or her employer less than the minimum fair wage or overtime wage
to which he or she is entitled under sections 31-58, 31-59 and 31-60 or
by virtue of a minimum fair wage order he or she shall recover, in a civil
action, (A) twice the full amount of such minimum wage or overtime
wage less any amount actually paid to him or her by the employer, with
costs and such reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court,
or (B) if the employer establishes that the employer had a good faith
belief that the underpayment of such wages was in compliance with the
law, the full amount of such minimum wage or overtime wage less any
amount actually paid to him or her by the employer, with costs and such
reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court.”
10
In May, 2022, the legislature enacted P.A. 22-134, titled, “An Act
Concerning Employee Record Keeping,” which includes the provision
relevant to this appeal. Public Act 22-134 amended § 31-60 (d) by add-
ing subdivision (4), which provides: “Notwithstanding any other law or
regulation, any claim brought under this subsection, section 31-68 as it
Woodford v. HRG Management, LLC

actively take away the plaintiff’s cause of action under
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (minimum wage
act), General Statutes § 31-58 et seq., and (3) applying
P.A. 22-134 to the plaintiff’s claims did not violate due
process.11 We therefore affirm the judgment of the court.
relates to gratuities as part of the minimum wage or section 31-62-E3
of the regulations of Connecticut state agencies filed after September
24, 2022, shall be adjudicated, solely, under section 31-60-2 of the
regulations of Connecticut state agencies effective on September 24,
2020, and any amendments thereto.”
11
The plaintiff also claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded
that (1) her “follow-on” class action does not relate back to the filing of
four prior putative class actions brought against the defendants, even
though those cases did not result in the denial of class certification, and
(2) Governor Ned Lamont’s Executive Order No. 7G expired on March
1, 2021, by operation of Governor Lamont’s Executive Order No. 10A,
rather than on May 20, 2021. See Gilbert v. HRG Management, LLC,
Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Complex Litigation Docket,
Docket No. X07-CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S; Scott v. HRG Management, LLC,
Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Complex Litigation Docket,
Docket No. X07-CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S; Violette v. HRG Management, LLC,
Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Complex Litigation Docket,
Docket No. X03-CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S; and White v. HRG Management,
LLC, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Complex Litigation
Docket, Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S.
In her tolling claims, the plaintiff asserts that the United States
Supreme Court’s decision in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah,
414 U.S. 538, 94 S. Ct. 756, 38 L. Ed. 2d 713 (1974), which was adopted
by our Supreme Court in Grimes v. Housing Authority, 242 Conn. 236,
244, 698 A.2d 302 (1997), together with Governor Lamont’s executive
orders, tolled the applicable two year statute of limitations in General
Statutes § 52-596.
We need not address these claims, however, in light of our disposi-
tive conclusion that § 31-60 (d) (4) applies to the plaintiff’s claims and
that the plaintiff did not comply with its requirements. See General
Statutes § 31-60 (d) (4) (“any claim brought under this subsection,
section 31-68 as it relates to gratuities as part of the minimum wage or
section 31-62-E3 of the regulations of Connecticut state agencies filed
after September 24, 2022, shall be adjudicated, solely, under section
31-60-2 of the regulations of Connecticut state agencies effective on
September 24, 2020, and any amendments thereto”). Thus, even if we
were to agree with the plaintiff’s tolling claims, the plaintiff still would
not prevail because, pursuant to § 31-60 (d) (4), any claims filed after
September 24, 2022, must be adjudicated solely under § 31-60-2 of the
regulations, and, in the present case, the plaintiff alleged violations
of only old E3 and old E4.
Woodford v. HRG Management, LLC

The following facts, as alleged in the plaintiff’s
amended complaint,12 and procedural history are rel-
evant to our resolution of this appeal, which presents
similar issues to those presented in Farias. The plaintiff
was employed by Wood-n-Tap, primarily at its Orange
and Hamden locations, from approximately September
17, 2018, until approximately May, 2022, as a server
and hostess. The plaintiff alleged that the individual
defendants are co-owners of all Wood-n-Tap restaurants
in Connecticut and that the defendant entities oper-
ate several Wood-n-Tap locations in Connecticut. The
plaintiff further alleged that the defendants function
as a single, integrated enterprise and collectively have
the status of a single employer of the plaintiff pursu-
ant to Connecticut wage laws. At all relevant times, the
defendants maintained a common practice at all of their
Wood-n-Tap Connecticut restaurants to take the full tip
credit against the wages of their servers and bartenders.
Accordingly, the defendants paid their servers $6.38
per hour, and their bartenders $8.23 per hour, rather
than the full minimum wage.13 The defendants assigned
the plaintiff, and other similarly situated servers and
bartenders, “nonservice duties,” which included set-
ting up before the restaurant is opened to the public,
and “side work” that they were required to perform
during their serving shifts and after they had finished
their shifts. This side work included, but was not limited
to, general cleaning and stocking duties, sweeping the
kitchen line and common areas of the restaurant, taking
garbage out to a dumpster, wiping the kitchen line and
various stations, retrieving clean silverware from the
dish room, rolling silverware, replacing ice underneath
12
“For purposes of reviewing a motion to strike, we take the facts
alleged in the complaint as true.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Ferrua v. Napoli Foods, Inc., 237 Conn. App. 23, 25 n.5, 349 A.3d 620
(2025), petition for cert. filed (Conn. March 6, 2026) (No. 250349).
13
During the alleged claim period of April 2, 2018, until September
23, 2020, a “minimum fair wage” was defined in § 31-58 (i) (1) as not
less than $10.10 per hour effective January 1, 2017; as not less than
$11 per hour effective October 1, 2019; and as not less than $12 per
hour effective September 1, 2020.
Woodford v. HRG Management, LLC

the dressings on the kitchen line, and cleaning out and
refilling whipped cream dispensers. The side work tasks
related to the operation of the restaurant generally and
were not performed by servers specifically for their own
customers.
On October 20, 2022, the plaintiff commenced the
present putative class action against the defendants,
on behalf of herself and other Wood-n-Tap servers and
bartenders employed during the alleged class period, for
violations of Connecticut wage laws and regulations.14
The plaintiff’s operative amended complaint, filed on
January 24, 2023, contains two counts. In count one,
the plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated old
E3 by failing to record properly the amount claimed as
credit in the wage record for her and other servers on a
weekly basis, and by failing to obtain “tip statements”
on a weekly basis confirming that the plaintiff received
sufficient tips to satisfy the tip credit that the defen-
dants took each week. In the second count, the plaintiff
alleged that the defendants violated old E4 by failing to
segregate her and other similarly situated servers’ service
and nonservice duties. The plaintiff alleged an applicable
claim period for her class action claims15 under old E3
and old E4 from April 2, 2018, until September 23, 2020.
In February, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to
strike both counts of the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant
14
As noted previously, the present case is the fifth putative class
action brought against the defendants on behalf of servers and bartend-
ers asserting substantially similar class wide violations pursuant to
old E3 and old E4. See footnote 11 of this opinion. Each of those prior
actions was withdrawn after the parties reached a settlement, with
the exception of Violette v. HRG Management, LLC, Superior Court,
judicial district of Hartford, Complex Litigation Docket, Docket No.
CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S, which was dismissed for failure to prosecute. At the
time each prior action was withdrawn or dismissed, a motion for class
certification pursuant to Practice Book §§ 9-7 and 9-8 had neither been
filed nor ruled on by the court.
15
It is not disputed that the plaintiff did not allege any individual
claims in her complaint but, rather, alleged only putative class action
claims.
Woodford v. HRG Management, LLC

to Practice Book § 10-39,16 together with an accompa-
nying memorandum of law. The defendants contended,
first, that the complaint failed to state a claim on which
relief could be granted for violations of old E3 and old
E4. Second, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff’s
claims were barred by the two year statutory limitation
period set forth in General Statutes § 52-596.17 Finally,
the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s old E3 claims
should be stricken because the minimum wage act, as
amended by P.A. 22-134, did not provide a private right
of action with respect to those claims.
On March 24, 2023, the plaintiff filed a memorandum
of law in opposition to the motion to strike, along with
exhibits, including, inter alia, relevant legislative his-
tory and certain of Governor Lamont’s executive orders,
which were issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. The
plaintiff argued, inter alia, that P.A. 22-134 should not
be construed to retroactively change old E3 and old E4,
and that doing so would constitute a taking of the class’
vested property interest in its members’ causes of action
in violation of their due process rights. As to whether
old E3 conferred a private right of action, the plaintiff
asserted that the court should defer ruling on that issue
because, at that time, this court’s decision in Nettleton
v. C & L Diners, LLC, 219 Conn. App. 648, 296 A.3d
173 (2023), had, as of the time of the plaintiff’s briefing
before the trial court, not yet been released.18 On April
10, 2023, the defendants filed a reply. On June 6, 2023,
16
Practice Book § 10-39 provides in relevant part: “(a) A motion to
strike shall be used whenever any party wishes to contest: (1) the legal
sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint, counterclaim or cross
claim, or of any one or more counts thereof, to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted . . . .”
17
General Statutes § 52-596 provides in relevant part: “No action for
the payment of remuneration for employment payable periodically shall
be brought but within two years after the right of action accrues . . . .”
18
In Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC, supra, 219 Conn. App. 653, one
of the issues presented was whether § 31-68 (a) provides a private cause
of action for a recordkeeping violation under old E3.
Woodford v. HRG Management, LLC

before oral argument on the defendants’ motion to strike,
Nettleton was released by this court. See id.
On June 26, 2023, the parties appeared before the
court, Noble, J., for oral argument.19 On January 2,
2024, the court issued a memorandum of decision, in
which it granted the defendants’ motion to strike. As
to count one, alleging violations of old E3, the court
concluded that it was bound by this court’s decision in
Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC, supra, 219 Conn. App.
678, which held that “the recordkeeping requirements
in § 31-62-E3 (b) and (c) of the regulations are directory
and, therefore, that the defendant’s noncompliance with
those requirements does not invalidate the tip credit and
does not give rise to a private cause of action.”
As to count two, alleging violations of old E4, the trial
court agreed with the defendants that the plaintiff’s
complaint was legally insufficient. The court noted its
prior conclusion in Farias v. Rodriguez, Docket No.
X07-CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S, 2023 WL 9054493 (Conn.
Super. December 29, 2023), aff’d, 238 Conn. App. 287,
A.3d (2026), that the complaint in that action was
legally insufficient in light of the court’s determination
that Ҥ 31-60 (d) (4) mandates that all actions filed after
September 24, 2022, are to be adjudicated solely under
§ 31-60-2 of the regulations . . . effective on September
24, 2020 . . . .” The court also rejected the plaintiff’s
argument that the application of P.A. 22-134 constituted
a taking of her vested property interest in violation of
due process.
On January 3, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion to
reargue, to which the defendants objected. The court
19
The defendants argue that the plaintiff’s claim is unpreserved for
review by this court because the plaintiff did not raise the applicability
of Nettleton v. C & L Diners, LLC, supra, 219 Conn. App. 648, to the
present case before the trial court. At the time the plaintiff filed her
opposition to the defendants’ motion to strike, however, this court’s
decision in Nettleton had not yet been released. Furthermore, Nettleton
was discussed by the parties’ counsel at oral argument on the motion to
strike. Therefore, we conclude that the plaintiff’s claim was properly
preserved.
Woodford v. HRG Management, LLC

denied the motion to reargue, and the plaintiff appealed
to this court. Thereafter, the court granted the plaintiff’s
motion for judgment on June 27, 2024, and the plaintiff
filed an amended appeal.20
As stated previously in this opinion, the issues raised
by the parties and the merits of the underlying argu-
ments presented in this appeal are essentially identical
to those considered in the companion case to the present
appeal, which we also decide today. See Farias v. Rodri-
guez, supra, 238 Conn. App. 287. In Farias, we first
concluded that § 31-68 does not provide a private cause
of action for a recordkeeping violation under old E3.
See id., 299. Second, we rejected the plaintiff’s claim
that the application of § 31-60 (d) (4) impermissibly
took away the plaintiff’s substantive cause of action
under the minimum wage act. See id., 308–309. Finally,
we determined that, even if we assume arguendo that
P.A. 22-134 was retroactive as applied, such retroactive
application did not violate due process. See id., 310. We
reach the same conclusions in the present case.
Our conclusions with respect to the issues presented
in Farias thoroughly resolve the claims in the present
appeal, and there is nothing in this case that would man-
date a result different from that which we reached in
Farias. See generally id., 299, 308–309, 310. We there-
fore adopt the reasoning and conclusions of that decision
herein. See, e.g., State v. Drakes, 321 Conn. 857, 864,
146 A.3d 21, cert. denied, 580 U.S. 927, 137 S. Ct. 321,
196 L. Ed. 2d 234 (2016); Minnesota Methane, LLC v.
Dept. of Public Utility Control, 283 Conn. 700, 712, 931
A.2d 177 (2007). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial
court properly granted the defendants’ motion to strike.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
20
On July 8, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plain-
tiff’s June 10, 2024 appeal on the ground that it was untimely. This
court denied the defendants’ motion and ordered, sua sponte, that “the
original appeal filed June 10, 2024, is dismissed for lack of a final judg-
ment. The amended appeal may proceed.”