Hunter Pyle, Author at Hunter Pyle Law

PAGA, Individual Claims, Public Entities, and Section 1102.5 Whistleblower Claims

Hunter PyleSeptember 30, 2019April 30, 2020

On September 8, 2019, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District issued an important decision in the case of Hawkins v. City of Los Angeles (Case Nos. B279719, B282416). That decision casts light on the following questions: (1) Whether PAGA claims can be brought on behalf of an individual, as opposed to a group of aggrieved employees; (2) Whether PAGA claims can be brought against public entities; and (3) Whether attorneys’ fees are recoverable under Labor Code section 1102.5.

Continue reading “PAGA, Individual Claims, Public Entities, and Section 1102.5 Whistleblower Claims” →

Can California Workers Recover Waiting Time Penalties, Wage Statement Penalties, or Attorneys’ Fees for Meal and Rest Period Violations?

Hunter PyleSeptember 30, 2019March 17, 2020

A recent decision from the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District in the case of Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (September 26, 2019) Case No. B256232 addresses several unresolved questions pertaining to meal and rest periods in California.

First, the Court upheld the trial court’s ruling that Spectrum had not met the requirements for an on-duty meal period because, during part of the class period, it did not have a written agreement in which the employees were advised that the agreement could be revoked. In reaching this conclusion the Court rejected Spectrum’s argument that it had substantially complied with the on-duty meal period requirements. Continue reading “Can California Workers Recover Waiting Time Penalties, Wage Statement Penalties, or Attorneys’ Fees for Meal and Rest Period Violations?” →

My Company Owes Me Wages. Can I Sue My Boss Individually For Them?

Hunter PyleAugust 30, 2019October 29, 2020

In California, employees can sue certain individuals for money that their employers owe them. But a recent decision by the California Supreme Court limits the avenues for that type of recovery.

First, the good news: California Labor Code section 558.1 allows “person[s] acting on behalf of an employer” to be held liable as the employer for violating any provision regulating minimum wages or hours and days of work in any of the Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders. This section also applies to the following Labor Code sections: 203 (failure to pay wages due at the time of termination); 226 (failure to provide proper wage statements); 226.7 (failure to provide meal and rest breaks); 1193.6 (failure to pay minimum wage); 1194 (failure to pay minimum wage) and 2802 (failure to reimburse for business expenses). Continue reading “My Company Owes Me Wages. Can I Sue My Boss Individually For Them?” →

Which Wage and Hour Laws Apply to California Public Employees?

Hunter PyleAugust 16, 2019October 29, 2020

Wage and hour laws require that employers pay minimum wages and overtime wages, provide meal and rest breaks, and pay all wages immediately upon termination of employment, among many other things. Public employees often wonder whether they are covered by these laws, or whether such basic protections do not apply to them. The answer in California, in true lawyerly fashion, is, “it depends.” This post will attempt to sort out which wage and hour laws apply to public employees and which, unfortunately, do not. Continue reading “Which Wage and Hour Laws Apply to California Public Employees?” →

California Court Clarifies Rule Regarding Reimbursing Employees for Slip-Resistant Shoes

Hunter PyleJuly 11, 2019March 17, 2020

When is a California employer required to reimburse its employees for the cost of slip-resistant shoes? On June 4, 2019, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District answered this question in the case of Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. (Case No. C086672). The defendant in Townley operates 63 restaurants in California. In order […]

Whistleblower Rights under California Labor Code Section 1102.5

Hunter PyleJuly 5, 2019October 29, 2020

A whistleblower is someone who calls attention to unlawful behavior or activities in the workplace. California Labor Code section 1102.5 is one of the strongest whistleblower protection laws in the land. The recent decision of Ross v. County of Riverside (2019) 2019 WL 2537342 further strengthens that law. by clarifying that employees need only believe that some illegal activity is happening when they report it. They do not have to expressly state that the activity violates the law in order to be protected. Continue reading “Whistleblower Rights under California Labor Code Section 1102.5” →

Dynamex Applies to Franchisors and Is Retroactive: The Ninth Circuit Weighs in

Hunter PyleMay 30, 2019March 17, 2020

All companies want to reduce their labor costs. Unfortunately, some resort to classifying their workers as independent contractors when they really should be classified as employees. Among other issues, that misclassification robs the workers of critical protections under the law: For example, many wage and hour laws do not apply to independent contractors.

Last year, in Dynamex Ops. v. Superior Court (2018) 416 P.3d 1, the California Supreme Court issued a strong opinion in favor of California’s workers. Dynamex adopted the “ABC test” for determining whether workers are employees or independent contractors under the California wage orders. Now, in Vasquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l (May 2, 2019), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has gone further, approving the ABC test, holding that Dynamex applies retroactively, and applying it to franchise relationships. Continue reading “Dynamex Applies to Franchisors and Is Retroactive: The Ninth Circuit Weighs in” →

Arbitration and the California Supreme Court: A Glimmer of Hope in Melendez

Hunter PyleMay 28, 2019March 17, 2020

Corporations in recent years have made great strides in their efforts to hijack the American system of justice and force workers out of court and into mandatory arbitration. Their hope is that arbitration is such a stacked deck (and often it is) that workers will choose not to try to enforce their rights. They also hope that the “repeat player” phenomenon will give them a decisive advantage in terms of the results. Sadly, all too often that is the case.

However, there are signs that some judges are beginning to realize exactly what is going on with mandatory arbitration-and what a travesty it is. Continue reading “Arbitration and the California Supreme Court: A Glimmer of Hope in Melendez” →

Unpaid Wages and PAGA: A Third Approach in Zakaryan v. The Men’s Wearhouse

Hunter PyleApril 4, 2019April 4, 2019

On March 28, 2019, a third California Court of Appeal weighed in on the issue of whether California employees who have signed arbitration agreements can bring claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for unpaid wages.

To set the stage, in Esparza v. KS Indus., L.P. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1228, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that a PAGA claim can be split, and that PAGA claims for unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558 can be sent to individual arbitration. In Lawson v. ZB, N.A. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 705, the Fourth District Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that employees can bring those PAGA claims on a representative basis in court.

The Second District Court of Appeal has now weighed in on this issue in the case of Zakaryan v. The Men’s Wearhouse (March 29, 2019) Case No. B289192. In that case, the court agreed with Lawson for the most part, but added this interesting twist: Of the unpaid wages recovered, 75 percent must go to the State, and 25 percent to the workers. In reaching this holding, the Zakaryan court relied on the fact that Labor Code section 558 was enacted before PAGA. Therefore, PAGA’s later-enacted rule regarding the distribution of civil penalties recovered under that statute must control. Continue reading “Unpaid Wages and PAGA: A Third Approach in Zakaryan v. The Men’s Wearhouse” →

How to Stop Wage Theft and Hold Your Boss Personally Liable for Unpaid Wages under California Law

Hunter PyleMarch 22, 2019

Wage theft, or the failure to pay all wages due, is a serious problem. Studies show that up to $50 billion in wages go unpaid every year in the United States, and even workers who get court judgments for unpaid wages find it hard to collect on them. One reason for this state of affairs is that the law makes it relatively easy for individuals to hide behind corporate status and/or corporate shells in order to protect their assets.

A 2018 California court case clarifies that workers in this state have an important tool that allows them to bring suit against individual business owners for unpaid wages. In Atempa v. Pedrazzani (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 809, the court held that two former employees could sue the owner of the restaurant at which they had formerly worked for unpaid wages. The court reached this decision despite the fact that the owner had created a corporation that was technically the employees’ employer. Continue reading “How to Stop Wage Theft and Hold Your Boss Personally Liable for Unpaid Wages under California Law” →