Wage And Hour Update
January 12, 2011 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine
Pineda v. Bank of America (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1389. Labor Code section 203 imposes a daily penalty on employers who fail to pay all wages owed immediately upon termination. In Pineda, the California Supreme Court held that an action for waiting- time penalties alone (i.e., without a claim for wages owed also) is subject to the same statute of limitation as a final wage claim, which is three years. Before Pineda, an action for only waitingtime penalties was subject to a one-year statute of limitation.
Martinez v. Coombs (2010) 29 Cal.4th 35. The California Supreme Court held that IWC Wage Orders define “employer” for the purposes of liability claims brought by an employee. The Court stated, “to employ” means: (a) to exercise control over the wages, hours, or working conditions, or (b) to suffer or permit to work, or (c) to engage, thereby creating a common law employment relationship.” Martinez will be most relevant in industries that hire intermediary subcontractors to insulate themselves from claims brought by employees. These intermediary contractors often underbid contracts leading to undercapitalization and an inability to pay wages. As in Martinez, in determining who the responsible employer is, the primary issue will often be who asserted control and how much control did they assert. California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association v. State of California (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 646. The Court held that Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7, addressing required meal and rest periods, do not apply to public employees. The Court stated, as a general rule, “provisions of the Labor Code apply only to employees in the private sector unless they are specifically made applicable to public employees.”
Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 610. Incentive compensation, such as bonuses and profitsharing plans, constitutes “wages” within the Labor Code. Accordingly, such wages are due immediately upon employment separation under Labor Code sections 201 and 202. Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 591. The California Supreme Court held that while Labor Code section 351 prohibits employers from sharing in employees’ tips, the statute does not create a private cause of action for employees to recover tips misappropriated by employers. However, other remedies may be available to employees for misappropriated tips, such as a common law cause of action for conversion.
Bamonte v. City of Mesa, 598 F.3d 1217(9th Cir. 2010). Police officers’ time spent changing into and out of their uniforms is not compensable time under federal law if they have the option of changing at home.
The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.
