Page:Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas v. Andrews.pdf/8

 In 2006, the General Assembly enacted a provision allowing employees to file suit against the State in AMWA actions. Acts of 2006 (1st Ex. Sess.), Act 15, § 5, eff. Oct. 1, 2006; Acts of 2006 (1st Ex. Sess.), Act 16, § 5, eff. Oct. 1, 2006. Subsequently, in 2014, Andrews filed his amended complaint alleging violations of the AMWA, which provides in relevant part,

"(e)(1) An employee may bring an action for equitable and monetary relief against an employer, including the State of Arkansas or a political subdivision of the state, if the employer pays the employee less than the minimum wages, including overtime wages, to which the employee is entitled under or by virtue of this subchapter."

"(2) If the employee brings an action under this subsection, then any complaint before the director by the employee on the same matter shall be dismissed with respect to that employee."

"(3)(A) The employee shall not be required to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing an action."

"(B) There shall be no procedural, pleading, or burden of proof requirements beyond those that apply generally to civil suits in order to maintain the action."

Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-218(e) (emphasis added). "Employer" is defined as "the State of Arkansas" or "any political subdivision of the state[.]" Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-203(4)(A).

We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo, as it is for this court to determine the meaning of a statute. ''Ark. Dep't of Corr. v. Shults'', 2017 Ark. 300, 529 S.W.3d 628. In the absence of a showing that the circuit court erred, its interpretation will be accepted as correct on appeal. Id., 529 S.W.3d 628. The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Id., 529 S.W.3d 628. We first construe the statute just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Id., 529 S.W.3d 628.

If we apply our post-1996 caselaw, the plain language of section 11-4-218(e) would qualify as an exception to sovereign immunity because it contains an express waiver created