This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
2004-315, SNCR CORPORATION d/b/a SUNCOR CORPORATION v. STEVEN L. GREENE
compensation set forth in the employment letter. At no time during the DOL employer, Suncor. After a hearing, the DOL awarded the respondent the The respondent, Steven Green e, brought a wage claim against his former
(DOL). We affirm. affirming a wage claim decision by the New Hampshire Department of Labor Corporation (Suncor), appeals an order of the Superior Court (Hampsey, J.) N ADEAU, J. The petitioner, SNCR Corporation d/b/a Suncor
attorney general, on the brief), for the State, as amicus curiae. Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Wynn E. Arnold, senior assistant
James M. McNamee, of Nashua, by brief and orally, for the defendant.
Mark S. Derby on the brief, and Mr. Rayment orally), for the plaintiff. Cleveland, Waters and Bass, P.A., of Concord (David W. Rayment and
Opinion Issued: May 20, 2005 Argued: January 19, 2005
STEVEN L. GREENE
v.
SNCR CORPORATION d/b/a SUNCOR CORPORATION
No. 2004 - 315 Hillsborough - sou thern judicial district
___________________________
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. O pinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 Errors may be reported by E - mail at the following address: errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Hampshire, One Noble Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as 2
hearing, the petitioner moved to dismiss, claiming that it was entitled to a jury In ICS Communi cations v. Fitch, 145 N.H. 433 ( 2000), prior to the DOL
presented below. Hansel v. City of Keene, 138 N.H. 99, 105 (1993). superior court. We will not review on appeal constitutional issues not unsatisfied with the result, asserting the right to a jury trial for the first time in pursuing it, or gain an advantage by trying the case before the D OL and, if will not be able to delay resolution of the claim, increase the employee’s cost of 1985). In this case, the preservation requirement ensures that an employer constitute a waiver thereof.” Elkins v. Showcase, Inc., 704 P. 2d 977, 985 (Kan. acquiescence inconsistent with an intention to insist on a jury trial may U.S. 1011 (1989) (quotations and brackets omitted). In addition, “conduct or instance.” Appeal of Bosselait, 130 N.H. 604, 607 (1988), cert. denied, 488 to come to sound conclusions and to correct claimed errors in the first the earliest possible time, because trial forums should have a full opportunity e ntitled to a jury trial and seek appropriate relief. “[I]ssues must be raised at time in the administrative hearing did Suncor assert the claim that it was because the record reveals that it failed to properly preserve the issue. At no We need not address Suncor’s claim that it was entitled to a jury trial
Opinion of the Justices (SLAPP Suit Procedure), 1 38 N.H. 445, 450 (1994). to special statutory or summary proceedings unknown to the common law. for which the right existed when the constitution was adopted in 1784, but not This constitutional pr ovision extends the right to trial by jury to all cases
think it necessary to alter it. seas and in cases relating to mariners’ wages, the legislature shall procedure shall be held sacred unless, in cases arising on the high involved, t he parties have a right to a trial by jury. This method of controversy does not exceed $1,500 and no title to real estate is is and has been customary and except those in which the value in between 2 or more persons except those in which another practice In all con troversies concerning property, and in all suits
Part 1, Article 20 of the State Constitution provides:
constitutional issue in the superior court. the administrative hearing level did not waive its right to raise that constitutional right to a jury trial; and ( 2) its failure to request a jury trial at and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto deprived it of its On appeal, Suncor argues that: (1) the provisions of RSA chapter 275
followed. and the superior court affirmed the hearing officer’s decision. This appeal hearing did Suncor argue that it was entitled to a jury trial. Su ncor appealed 3
concurred. BRODERICK, C.J., and DALIANIS, DUGGAN and GALWAY, JJ.,
Affirmed.
prese rved for appeal, we decline to review it. documents submitted to the DOL. Thus, because the jury trial issue was not In addition, Suncor never asserted the right in any of the pleadings or that this was a contract claim, Suncor never asserted its right to a jury trial. right to a jury trial. Regardless of whether the petitioner a rgued at the hearing failed to file a motion to dismiss the wage claim based upon a constitutional claiming again the right to a jury trial. In this case, however, the petitioner N.H. at 4 34. After the hearing, the petition er appealed to the superior court, trial under the New Hampshire Constitution. See ICS Communications, 145