Vol. 35 No.35
       ©2007 Marianas Variety
Thursday, May 3, 2007 www.mvariety.com
Serving the CNMI for 35 years
 

© 2007 Marianas Variety
Published by Younis Art Studio Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Email :
mvariety@vzpacifica.net
Garment worker sues former employer for nonpayment of damages

By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

A GARMENT worker has sued her former employer for non-payment of $7,378 in damages awarded to her by the Department of Labor after it found the now defunct factory liable for her wrongful termination.
Chen Tong Wang, through attorney Michael A. White, filed the complaint in Superior Court against Michigan Inc.
She is seeking a judgment against the defendant for the principal sum of $14,757.60, for reasonable attorney’s fees, for cost of suit and for interest on the total of the foregoing at the maximum rate provided by law from the date of judgment.
Her complaint stated that she filed a labor case against the defendant and that the administrative hearing officer of the Department of Labor entered an administrative order on March 16, awarding damages of $7,378.80 in her favor.
According to the complaint, Michigan Inc. has failed, refused and neglected and still fails, refuses and neglects to pay the amount.
The complaint stated that Chen Tong Wang is entitled to liquidated damages in the additional amount of $7, 378.80 and to reasonable attorney’s fees.
The Department of Labor’s document attached to the complaint stated that a hearing was held on March 16 at its Division of Administrative Hearings.
The document stated that Chen Tong Wang requested transfer relief and money damages.
Labor granted her request and ordered Michigan Inc. to pay her damages for unpaid wages.
The document signed by Deanne C. Siemer, hearing officer, stated that Chen Tong Wang worked for more than six months with no reprimands on record. A series of incidents on Feb.11 and 12 in 2004 and various related exchanges with a supervisor caused her to become upset and she injured herself, resulting in hospitalization.
The document stated that, thereafter, her employer terminated her.
According to Labor, the termination appeared to be more related to the hospitalization than to workplace problems and the plaintiff’s testimony was credible.