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”→
PAGA, also known as the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Cal. Labor Code § 2698, et seq.) requires workers to give written notice to California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency, or LWDA, before seeking civil penalties that otherwise could only be recovered by the state of California. A 2018 appellate decision in Brown v. Ralph’s Grocery Company, a case that has been pending since 2009, provides guidance in terms of how much written notice is required in PAGA notice letters, and when workers are required to amend their PAGA notice letters in order to preserve claims that that they discover after the date of their letter. Continue reading “Providing PAGA Notice to the LWDA | Hunter Pyle Law”→
The California Supreme Court has clarified an important issue regarding wage and hour claims under California law . In Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829, as modified on denial of reh’g (Aug. 29, 2018), the Court addressed the question of whether the de minimis doctrine applies in claims brought under the California Labor Code. Critically, the Court held that it does not. As a result, California employers must pay for all off-the-clock work, even when it does not add up to very much money.
The de minimis doctrine, as developed under federal law, has been something of a “get out of jail free” card for employers. In Latin, de minimis refers to the phrase, “de minimis non curat lex,” or “the law does not concern itself with trifles.” In the modern world, the doctrine has been used under federal law to allow employers to avoid paying wages for small amounts of otherwise compensable time based upon a showing that recording that time would be difficult to do.
In Troester, for example, Starbucks sought to use the de minimis doctrine to avoid paying wages for short periods of time spent closing the store and transmitting daily sales, profit and loss, and store inventory data to Starbucks’s corporate headquarters. Starbucks also sought to avoid paying for time spent activating the store’s alarm.
All in all the plaintiff estimated that he was owed about $100. That may not sound like a lot, but give the number of Starbucks in California it is clear that Starbucks was saving itself a significant amount of money in unpaid wages through its practices.
The California Supreme Court divided the Troester case into two separate holdings. First, the Court found that California’s wage and hour laws and regulations had not adopted the federal de minimis doctrine. That is a critical difference between the California Labor Code and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (also known as FLSA).
Second, the Court held that where an employer requires an employee to work “off the clock” the de minimis doctrine does not apply to claims brought under California law.
In conclusion, the Court recognized that it might be difficult for an employer to track small amounts of time for the purpose of calculating payroll. However, employers are in a far better position to structure work so that employees are paid for all time spent working. Indeed, it appears that after Starbucks was sued it figured out how to organize its employees’ work so that they did not have to perform work before they punched in and after they punched out.
Troester reaffirms California’s strong commitment to ensuring that workers are paid for every minute that they work. If you are being forced to work off-the-clock, or have questions about your rights in the workplace, feel free to contact us at inquire@hunterpylelaw.com or (510) 444-4400 for a free and confidential initial intake.
In this time of political turbulence, many people wonder if they can be fired for their political beliefs or activities. In California, the answer to that question is no, thanks to the provisions of California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102. Section 1101, which has been on the books since 1937, provides as follows: No […]
California has two laws that protect employees from unauthorized background checks: the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Civil Code section 1785, et seq. (“CCRAA”) and the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, Civil Code section 1786, et seq. (“ICRAA”). (This blog post addresses only ICRAA, but we will post about CCRAA soon.) The California Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutionality of these statutes in a case called Connor v. First Student, Inc., S229428 (August 20, 2018). So now what? Continue reading “Can My Boss Run a Background Check on Me in California?”→
What are Waiting Time Penalties? California Labor Code Section 203 provides for penalties to workers who are not paid all wages due at the time of their termination, or within 72 hours of their resignation. Waiting time penalties are in the amount of the wages that the worker normally earns, up to a maximum of […]
If you work overtime in California and are are paid a bonus in addition to your hourly rate, you may be owed more money under a new California Supreme Court decision called Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. (2018) 2018 WL 1146645.
In Alvarado, the workers were paid an “attendance bonus” if they worked on a Saturday or Sunday: In addition to their hourly rate, they were paid an extra $15 per day of weekend work. California law requires that bonuses be included as wages when calculating overtime rates for employees who work more than eight hours in a day, or more than 40 hours in a week.
The question in Alvarado was how to calculate an employee’s overtime rate when the employee earned a flat sum bonus during a single pay period. Both the trial court and the court of appeal granted summary judgment to the employer. However, the California Supreme Court reversed, and clarified how flat rate bonuses should be factored into overtime pay: Continue reading “Bonuses and Overtime in California: Does Your Company Owe You More Money?”→
California workers are increasingly turning to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) to protect their rights under the Labor Code. Labor Code section 558(a) is particularly useful to workers who have not been paid all wages owed, because it provides that workers can recover as a civil penalty any underpaid wages as well as an additional penalty of $50 or $100 for each pay period in which they were not paid all wages due.
California employers have been trying to force PAGA claims, including claims under section 558, into arbitration, where they believe they have a better chance of prevailing. Employers got a boost in 2017 from one particularly troublesome case called Esparza v. KS Industries (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1228. There, the court held that the underpaid wages portion of a claim under Section 558 (as opposed to the penalties portion) was subject to arbitration.
Fortunately, another California court of appeal has issued a decision that rejects Esparza. In Lawson v. ZB, N.A. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 705 , the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that claims for unpaid wages under Section 558 cannot be severed from claims for penalties under that same section. Accordingly, such claims cannot be sent to arbitration. Continue reading “Using PAGA Claims To Recover Unpaid Wages: A Win For Workers In Lawson v. ZB”→
California Labor Code section 226(a) requires that employers provide accurate, itemized wage statements to employees. Those statements must include nine categories of information. Labor Code section 226(e)(1) provides that an employee who suffers injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure to comply with subdivision (a) is liable for up to $4,000 plus costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. (The terms injury and knowing and intentional failure are further defined in section 226(e)(2)).
Litigants have grappled for years over the question of whether the injury and knowing/intentional failure requirements of section 226(e) apply to a plaintiff who sues under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) seeking civil penalties for a violation of section 226(a). Continue reading “Wage Statements and PAGA: Penalties under Labor Code 226.3”→
What penalties do employers face for underpayment of employees? California Labor Code Section 558 outlines penalties employers face for underpayment of employees. The relevant language from section 558 is as follows: (a) Any employer or other person acting on behalf of an employer who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter […]
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.
workers who have not been paid all wages owed, because it provides that workers can recover as a civil penalty any underpaid wages as well as an additional penalty of $50 or $100 for each pay period in which they were not paid all wages due.