As in Turrietta v. Lyft, Inc. (2021) 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 815, the plaintiff in a parallel wage and hour case appealed from an order approving a class action and PAGA claim settlement. Contrary Turrietta, but without citing it, this decision holds that even though he opted out of the class, the objector had standing to appeal from the final… Read More
Because the employer did not keep adequate records to show how much of an employee's pay was based on commissions, the trial court correctly divided the entire compensation received by the employee during the week by 40 to determine his base pay for calculating the 150% of base pay owed for overtime work. Had the employer kept better records, the… Read More
The plaintiff in a parallel PAGA suit against the same employer does not have standing to move to vacate or appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court approved settlement of a different plaintiff's similar PAGA suit against the employer. To have standing to appeal one must be both a party to the action and be aggrieved by the… Read More
While the ABC test of employee v. independent contractor status applies retroactively, Prop. 22's classification of some gig workers as independent contractors applies only prospectively. So GrubHub drivers, if employees under the ABC test adopted in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, are entitled to back wages for the period before Prop. 22's adoption. The… Read More
Disagreeing with Curry v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 289 and Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1111, this decision holds that Equilon is a joint employer, at least for wage and hour regulation purposes, of the employees of the franchisees that run its gas stations. For wage and hour purposes, joint employment is governed by the… Read More
A court has inherent authority to ensure that PAGA claims can be fairly and efficiently tried and, if necessary, may strike claims that cannot be rendered manageable. As a matter of due process, defendants are entitled to a fair opportunity to litigate available affirmative defenses, and a court’s manageability assessment should account for them. Here, the PAGA claim was based… Read More
Labor Code 206 and 206.5 require an employer to pay an employee all wages the employer concedes are due without condition and without any release of the employee's disputed claims, if any, to other wages. Here, the employer conceded it owed plaintiff a bonus, but before paying it sent the plaintiff a 998 offer to settle all wage claims. Held,… Read More
The FAA applies to an arbitration clause in an employment agreement involved in interstate commerce and preempts California Labor Code 229 which forbids arbitration of wage and hour claims. The parties did not elect out of FAA preemption by a choice of law clause in the employment contract generally choosing California law, but not specifically choosing California law regarding arbitration… Read More
Burlington forced Gallano, one of its check-out clerks, to sign a promissory note for losses on return of items by customers or mistaken pricing of goods due to other workers' errors in affixing price tags. This opinion holds that Gallano stated viable claims against Burlington for violation of Lab. Code 2802 (which requires the employer to reimburse employees for expenses… Read More
Part of California's Prevailing Wage Law, Labor Code 1772 provides: "Workers employed by contractors or subcontractors in the execution of any contract for public work are deemed to be employed upon public work." Delving into the section's history and rejecting Court of Appeal decisions giving it a different interpretation, this decision holds that the section merely makes it clear that… Read More
California's Prevailing Wage Law (Lab. Code 1720(a)(1)) defines a "public work" as including construction and installation. This decision holds that while the statute does not expressly say so, the prior common meaning of a public work--that is a physical installation on real property--provides a context for the statutory definition, confining its broad undefined terms, construction and installation, to tasks performed… Read More
This decision holds that an employer cannot be penalized under Lab. Code 1197.1(b) for failure to pay minimum wages if it has paid at least minimum wages to the employees on or before their scheduled pay day, even if it violates Lab. Code 201, 202 by failing to pay an employee who is fired immediately on termination or one who… Read More
The district court correctly compelled arbitration in this wage-and-hour misclassification suit by a Massachusetts Uber driver. Even assuming Massachusetts would follow McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945, plaintiff did not seek a public injunction with McGill's meaning. Instead, plaintiff sought only an injunction that would benefit himself and other Uber drivers, but not the general public, by requiring… Read More
The trial court correctly compelled arbitration of this Massachusetts Uber driver's wage and hour class action, based on alleged misclassification of Uber drivers as independent contractors. For purposes of determining whether the plaintiff was a worker in interstate commerce, exempt from the FAA under 9 USC 2, the court properly considered the class of all Uber drivers nationwide, not just… Read More
If an employer fails to give its employee the required 10-minute rest breaks or 30-minute meal break, it owes the employee an hour's premium pay calculated at the employee's "regular rate of compensation." Lab. Code 226.7(c). This decision holds that "regular rate of compensation" has the same meaning than "regular rate of pay" used to compute overtime compensation. Lab. Code… Read More
This decision affirms a judgment holding that Certified Tire's method of compensating its technicians did not violate California's wage & hour laws. The compensation formula gave each technician a base salary rate that was above the minimum wage but allowed the technician to increase his hourly rate by performing more production work that customers paid for during the work week. … Read More
Distinguishing Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California (2018) 4 Cal.4th 542, this decision holds that in calculating the "regular rate of pay" for overtime work by a "dual rate" employee, the employer is not required to use the weighted average method of computing regular rate of pay but may instead calculate regular rate of pay by using the rate-in-effect… Read More
Gov. Code 12965(b) is an exception to the normal cost provisions of CCP 1032. Hence, when, as in this case, the plaintiff loses her FEHA claims but prevails on other claims, she is not entitled to recover costs incurred solely in relation to the FEHA claims. Also, since the total recovery in this case was less than the amount that… Read More
When an employee is the prevailing party on claims for minimum or overtime wages, she is entitled to a reasonable attorney fee on the claim pursuant to Lab. Code 1194. That section prevails over Lab. Code 1031, which would otherwise limit the attorney fee to 20% of the recovery if the employee recovers less than $300. The two statutes conflict,… Read More
Wal-Mart pays workers regular wages plus a quarterly bonus for good work during the quarter. Under California law, the bonus is regular wages which must be used to compute overtime time. But since Wal-Mart doesn't know until the end of the quarter whether it will pay a worker the bonus, its biweekly pay statements don't include the bonus in calculating… Read More
