Have You Been Denied Your Earned Commissions? Know Your Rights Under Virginia’s Wage Laws!

If you’re paid on commission and your employer is withholding what you’ve earned, you may have legal recourse—but a recent landmark ruling from the Supreme Court of Virginia changes the game. In Groundworks Operations, LLC f/k/a JES Operations, LLC, et al. v. Joseph Campbell, et al. (Record No. 241092, decided December 30, 2025), the Court addressed whether Virginia’s wage theft statute (Code § 40.1-29) protects commissions like it does wages and salaries.

Case Summary: Five former employees of JES Construction, LLC (a foundation repair and waterproofing company) sued under the wage theft law, claiming their employer withheld thousands in earned commissions after they left the company. These salespeople were paid 10% commissions on gross sales, split into halves: one after the contract’s rescission period, the other after job completion and customer payment. Delays were common due to engineering and permitting, and post-termination agreements limited payouts to 14 days after leaving. The plaintiffs argued commissions qualify as “wages” under the statute, entitling them to remedies like liquidated damages, interest, attorney fees, and even triple penalties for knowing violations.

Trial Court Ruling: Granted the employer’s demurrer, holding Code § 40.1-29 does not apply to commissions, as the statute explicitly mentions only “wages” and “salaries.”

Court of Appeals Reversal: Overturned the decision (82 Va. App. 580, 2024), interpreting “wages” broadly to include commissions based on the statute’s remedial purpose, prior case law (e.g., Fidelity Ins. v. Shenandoah Valley R.R. Co., 1889), and a Department of Labor and Industry manual.

Supreme Court Decision: Reversed the Court of Appeals in a majority opinion by Justice Stephen R. McCullough. The Court held that “wages” (payment for time worked or quantity produced) are distinct from “commissions” (percentage-based fees on sales). The statute’s plain language omits commissions, and contextual clues (e.g., other Virginia statutes listing them separately) show no intent to include them. Criminal penalties in the law require strict construction, outweighing remedial arguments. The Court dismissed deference to the agency’s manual, as this was a pure legal question.

Dissent (Chief Justice Goodwyn, joined by Justice Mann): Argued “wages” plainly includes commissions as compensation for services, citing dictionary definitions from the 19th century onward and prior broad interpretations. They viewed commissions here as core pay for sales output, warranting protection.

What This Means for You: This ruling limits wage theft claims to hourly wages and salaries—commissions fall outside, potentially leaving sales-based workers vulnerable to non-payment. However, other laws (e.g., contract or common law claims) may still apply. If your commissions are delayed, forfeited, or unpaid, this decision highlights the need for strong employment agreements and alternative legal strategies.