Waiting Time Penalties under California Labor Code section 203

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 30 days. Accordingly, if a worker normally earned $25 per hour, and worked 8 hours per day, his penalties would max out at $6000 if the employer failed to pay him the wages due for 30 days or more.

Waiting Time Penalties under Labor Code section 203 are not discretionary

In the recent case of Diaz v. Grill Concepts Services, Inc. (May 24, 2018), the Second District Court of Appeal held that trial courts do not have the discretion to dispense with waiting time penalties under California Labor Code section 203.

The court reached this conclusion based upon a common sense interpretation of the language of the statute, which provides that an employer which fails to pay wages due to an employee who is discharged or quits “shall” be liable for the penalties. The court also considered the purpose of the statute, which is to enact a substantial penalty on an employer that delays in cutting the final paycheck. Finally, the court declined to create an equitable exception to the statute.

The holding in Diaz is important because workers rely upon their wages for the necessities of life. Diaz ensures that waiting time penalties are available in every case that wages are not properly paid at the time of termination.

If you have questions about your unpaid wages, please feel free to contact Hunter Pyle Law for a free and confidential initial consultation. We can be reached at (510) 444-4400 or inquire@hunterpylelaw.com.

National Lawyers Guild Presents Hunter Pyle with the Champion of Justice Award

On April 14, 2018, the National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter presented Hunter Pyle with the Champion of Justice Award at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts.  Hunter was recognized for dedicating his career to fighting for economic justice as an employment attorney, championing the causes of workers’ rights, and contributing to the progressive legal community.  Hunter was also praised for spreading his passion and knowledge of workers’ rights by teaching employment law at Berkeley Law and mentoring inexperienced attorneys.  Hunter expressed thanks not only to his family for supporting him, but to his clients who have the courage to stand up for justice and advocate on behalf of all workers.

Bonuses and Overtime in California: Does Your Company Owe You More Money?

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: (more…)

Are You a Salaried Employee If You are Paid by the Hour?

Under California law, employers must pay workers overtime when work is performed: 1) over forty hours in a workweek; 2) over eight hours each day; or 3) on the seventh consecutive day in a workweek. However, employees that fall under the professional, executive, and administrative exemptions may be excluded from earning overtime compensation. For an employer to claim that its employee falls within these exemptions, the employee’s work conditions must satisfy both the “salary basis” and “job duties” test. The purpose of this article is to discuss the legal requirements of the “salary basis” test.

Although it is commonly understood that a salary is a fixed amount of pay, the legal definition of a salary is much more complex. These requirements are set forth in the “salary basis” test. To constitute a salary, an employee must be paid: 1) a set amount of compensation; 2) that is not subject to any reductions or variations. If an employee’s compensation fails to satisfy this test, the employee must be paid overtime. Employers cannot avoid paying overtime by improperly labeling an employee’s pay as a salary.

What is a Salary?

In Negri v. Koning & Associates (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 392, the California Sixth District Court of Appeals held that a salary must be a predetermined amount of pay that is not subject to reductions or variations. However, there are specific exceptions, which are related to absences, under the Code of Federal Regulations[1].

The key issue in this case is whether a compensation system based on an hourly rate of pay qualifies as a salary. Mark Negri, the Plaintiff, was an insurance adjuster employed by Koning & Associates. He was paid an hourly rate, twenty-nine dollars per hour, with no guarantee of the minimum number of hours to be worked. Whenever Mr. Negri worked more than forty hours in a workweek, his employer only paid him at his hourly rate instead of an overtime rate of one-and-one half times his hourly rate. His employer argued that Mr. Negri was not entitled to overtime pay because he was an exempt administrative employee.

Mr. Negri argued that he was entitled to overtime pay, because his compensation structure did not comply with the “salary basis” test. Due to being paid on an hourly basis, his pay was not fixed because it fluctuated based on the number of hours worked each week. In contrast, his employer argued that Mr. Negri was paid a de facto salary because he always worked sixty hours each week. Therefore, his salary was fixed because it was predetermined and not subject to reduction or variation. Furthermore, Mr. Negri’s employer emphasized that it never reduced Mr. Negri’s de facto salary by reducing his workload.

Due to a technical nuance that occurred during the lawsuit, the appellate court held that Mr. Negri was not paid a salary. As the case proceeded through litigation, both the employer and Mr. Negri stipulated that it never paid Mr. Negri a fixed amount of compensation. A stipulation is when a piece of evidence is submitted to the court as the truth. In the stipulation, the employer stated, “[I]f he [Mr. Negri] worked fewer claims ‘he made less money than if he worked more claims.’” Essentially, the employer admitted that Mr. Negri was never provided a fixed amount of pay because it was possible for his compensation to change based on the number of hours he worked. Despite Mr. Negri prevailing on his claim, the appellate court noted that employees with a fixed salary may receive extra payment without losing their exemption.

Conclusion

As it stands, a salary is a predetermined amount of pay: 1) that is not subject to reductions or variations; and 2) twice the state minimum wage. However, employers may pay an exempt employee additional compensation beyond the predetermined salary. An example of this is a salaried employee who receives two thousand dollars bi-weekly, but also receives additional pay that is lower than the minimum wage for each hour worked over forty hours a week.

If you feel that you have not been paid your rightful wages, please feel free to contact Hunter Pyle Law for a free consultation at (510) 444-4400 or inquire@hunterpylelaw.com.

[1] 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(b)

Using PAGA Claims To Recover Unpaid Wages: A Win For Workers In Lawson v. ZB

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. (more…)

An Employer Can Potentially be Held Liable if a Nonemployee Sexually Harasses an Employee

What happens if a nonemployee harasses or sexually assaults an employee in the workplace?  Is the employer liable?  Possibly.  On October 26, 2017, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District considered whether an employee’s claims against her employer for violating the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for harassment and failing to prevent harassment overcame the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine.  M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Management, LLC (D070150, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 10/26/17).  (more…)

New California Law Prohibits Employers from Asking Job Applicants about Salary History

On October 12, 2017, Assembly Bill 168, which prohibits employers from asking job applicants for salary history information, was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. Governor Brown vetoed a similar bill in 2015 on the grounds that it would prevent employers “from obtaining relevant information with little evidence that this would assure more equitable wages.” This time around, the bill enjoyed the support of both parties and the governor. (more…)

Wage Statements and PAGA: Penalties under Labor Code 226.3

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).  (more…)

California Labor Code 558 and PAGA: Recovering Wages

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 or any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the Industrial Welfare Commission shall be subject to a civil penalty as follows:

(1) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.

(2) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.

(3) Wages recovered pursuant to this section shall be paid to the affected employee.

Recovery of Lost Wages and Civil Penalties through PAGA

Through the Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA, workers are able to recover civil penalties that otherwise would only be recoverable by the State of California, including the civil penalties described in Labor Code section 558. Section 558 is unusual because, through PAGA, it provides that workers can recover both flat rate penalties and penalties equal to their underpaid wages. And unlike other PAGA penalties, of which 75 percent go to the State and 25 percent go to the workers, the underpaid wages recovered under section 558 all go directly to the workers.

Workers have relied on Section 558 to bring representative actions under PAGA to recover unpaid wages on behalf of themselves and their co-workers.

See, e.g., Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Mgmt., Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1148 (underpaid wages can be recovered under section 558 “as part of a civil penalty for Labor Code and IWC order violations that result in underpayment of wages.”)  Significantly, pursuant to the holding in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, the right to collective action to enforce Labor Code section 558 survives even if the workers have signed an arbitration agreement banning such actions.

Recent Changes in Interpretation of California Labor Code section 558

Unfortunately, a recent decision of California’s Fifth Appellate District misinterprets section 558 in a confusing and potentially harmful manner.  In Esparza v. KS Industries, Inc., No. F072597 (August 2, 2017), the court ignored the plain language of section 558 in holding that an attempt to recover wages under section 558 is a “private dispute.”  As such, preventing arbitration of a claim for unpaid wages under section 558 would interfere with the Federal Arbitration Act.

All of that is a long way of saying that if workers bring PAGA claims under both section 558 and other Labor Code sections, and they have signed an arbitration agreement, Esparza will require them to arbitrate their section 558 claims, but leave them free to sue in court for the other claims.

Esparza is misguided for a number of reasons.  First, Iskanian did not hold that PAGA claims cannot be arbitrated.  Rather, it holds that waivers or representative claims under PAGA are contrary to public policy and not enforceable under state law.  59 Cal.4th at 384.

Second, the plain language of section 558, quoted above, states that civil penalties under that section include “an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.”  The Thurman court recognized this.  203 Cal.App.4th at 1148.  But Esparza ignores this language and creates a false distinction between the two types of civil penalties available under section 558 (the flat rate penalties of $50 or $100 per violation and the separate penalty equal to the underpaid wages).

Last, Esparza creates from whole cloth a new rule that PAGA representative claims for civil penalties are limited to those where a portion of the recovery is allocated to the State.  In applying this rule, which has no support, the court ignores the fact that a portion of the civil penalties under section 558 is allocated to the State:  the 75 percent of the flat rate penalty.  Thus, Esparza misapplies the very rule that it creates.

Esparza does not directly address the next logical question, which is whether an arbitration agreement that bans representative actions would be enforceable as to claims for underpaid wages under section 558, but not as to claims for other penalties under that same section.  That critical issue will have to wait for another day.  For now, we can hope that the California Supreme Court will grant review and depublish Esparza before it causes too much confusion.

If you have a question about whether you are owed wages, feel free to contact Hunter Pyle Law and utilize our free, confidential intake process.  We can be reached at (510) 444-4400 or at inquire@hunterpylelaw.com.

Ninth Circuit Issues Decision Regarding Employee’s Retaliation Claim Against Employer’s Attorney

In Arias v. Raimondo, Plaintiff Jose Anrulfo Arias filed suit against his employer’s attorney, Anthony Raimondo, for retaliation after Raimondo tried to have Arias taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) during a deposition. Arias v. Raimondo, No. 15-16120 (June 22, 2017).  Raimondo was representing Angelo Dairy in a lawsuit that Arias had filed in 2006 alleging various wage and hour violations.  In an attempt to derail this lawsuit, Raimondo provided ICE with information helpful in determining Arias’ legal status in the United States, and offered to “make the necessary arrangements” to assist ICE in apprehending Arias just ten weeks before trial.  When Arias discovered what Raimondo had done, he settled his wage and hour claims out of fear that he might be deported.  Then, Arias filed suit against Raimondo for retaliation in violation of the the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) under the theory that Raimondo was acting as Angelo Dairy’s agent when he retaliated against Arias. (more…)