- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Extremity Care LLC Dismissed from Unpaid Commission Suit
Court rules company that issued commission checks not considered employer under Virginia Wage Payment Act
Mar. 30, 2026 at 1:15pm
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
A court ruling that the company issuing paychecks does not automatically qualify as an employer underscores the complexities of employment law.Richmond TodayA Virginia federal court has dismissed Extremity Care LLC from a lawsuit filed by an employee seeking unpaid sales commissions, ruling that the company that issued the commission checks did not qualify as the plaintiff's employer under the state's Wage Payment Act.
Why it matters
This case highlights the importance of clearly defining employment relationships, as simply issuing paychecks is not enough to establish an employer-employee status under Virginia law. The ruling sets a precedent that could impact similar cases involving disputes over unpaid wages and commissions.
The details
The plaintiff, Michael Damon, sued his former employer Tiger Aesthetics Medical LLC (TAM) and Extremity Care LLC (EC) for failing to pay earned sales commissions in violation of the Virginia Wage Payment Act. However, the court ruled that EC, the company that issued Damon's commission checks, did not qualify as his employer under the statute. The court found that the complaint contained no allegations showing EC participated in Damon's hiring, supervised his work, or made decisions about his compensation or termination - factors that are required to establish an employment relationship beyond just paying wages. Instead, the complaint identified TAM as Damon's sole employer, with all details about his hiring, supervision and termination attributed to that company.
- The lawsuit was filed in March 2025.
The players
Michael Damon
The plaintiff who sued his former employer for unpaid sales commissions.
Extremity Care LLC
The company that issued commission checks to the plaintiff, but was dismissed from the lawsuit for not qualifying as his employer under Virginia law.
Tiger Aesthetics Medical LLC
The plaintiff's former employer, which was identified as his actual employer in the lawsuit.
What they’re saying
“Simply put, payment is a necessary condition—but not a sufficient condition.”
— The court
What’s next
The case against Tiger Aesthetics Medical LLC for the unpaid commissions will continue.
The takeaway
This ruling underscores that merely issuing paychecks is not enough to establish an employment relationship under Virginia's Wage Payment Act. Companies must demonstrate other common-law indicia of an employment relationship, such as hiring, supervision and termination decisions, in order to be liable for unpaid wages or commissions.


