penalty imposed for the violation of some law, rule or regulation.” Brown v. Navarre Chevrolet, Inc., 610 So.2d 165, 170 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1992). The few cases discussing § 23:635 restrict employers from levying fines on the employee (via deductions from wages) for failing to fol low workplace procedures and regulations. Brown, 610 So.2d at 168, 170 (finding that deductions made because employee arrived late for meetings, and parked company car in wrong place were fines and, therefore, prohibited by § 23:635); Stoll v. Goodnight Corp., 469 So.2d 1072, 1077 (La.App. 2 Cir.1985) (determining that requiring employee to reimburse employer for bad checks written by customers was not a fine where agreement existed between parties that employee would cover such losses); Hanks, 187 So. at 819 (<HOLDING>). Under a strict construction of the term
holding that employers charges against driveremployee for damages to a cab were not fines because the charge was used to cover cost of repair to cab and employee agreed to be responsible for such damage holding that the total cost of repairs could be found to be a fair measure of the plaintiffs total damage holding that an exception to the charges having to do with contributory negligence  charges two three and four was insufficient to preserve issue for appeal holding that failure of eeoc to transmit charge to phrc within limitations period was subject to equitable tolling where plaintiff requested crossfiling in the cover letter attached to the eeoc charge on the first page of the charge itself and on an official form used by the eeoc for requests for dualfiling holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted