of the state’s wage law. Although Section 31-72 does not specify the standard governing doubling of damages, the Connecticut Appellate Court has required a showing of bad faith or willfulness before the court may exercise its discretion and award double actual damages. See e.g., Anderson v. Schieffer, 35 Conn.App. 31, 645 A.2d 549 (1994). In contrast, the damages available under § 4852d are nondiscretionary once plaintiff demonstrates a knowing violation. The Court sees no basis to elevate the scienter requirement where the statute clearly establishes treble damages shall be awarded when a person knowingly violates the statute, without regard to their motivation or bad faith in doing so. Cf. McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133, 108 S.Ct. 1677, 100 L.Ed.2d 115 (1988) (<HOLDING>). This interpretation of the statute’s plain
holding that the plain language of the fair labor standards acts willful liquidated damages standard requires that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute without regard to the outrageousness of the conduct at issue holding that the language of the statute and the courts duty to apply the statute as written requires the court to interpret the statute to apply when the prisoner is sentenced without regard to the institution where the prisoner is incarcerated after the sentencing holding the employees complaints must give adequate notice to the employer that the employee is complaining of conduct prohibited by title vii holding that the knowledge required by  14202 of the mcdca refers to actual knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity of the information or the existence of the right holding that the government did not have to prove that the defendant knew that his acts violated the clean water act but merely that he was aware of the conduct that resulted in the permits violation