Source: https://www.turleylawfirm.com/blog/california-supreme-court-protecting-workers-wages.cfm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:12:06+00:00

Document:
California Supreme Court: Protecting Workers Wages | The Turley Law Firm P.C.
Believe it or not, Bill is known for being a no B.S. straight-up lawyer. Besides being known as one of the leading experts on this area of the law in California, one of the reasons why Bill is asked to testify at legislature hearings is because he is known for being straightforward and blunt. He is known for being no B.S., with no lawyer-talk, no double-talk.
In another pro-worker decision, in Peabody v. Time Warner, the California Supreme Court held that an employer may not attribute commission wages paid in one pay period to other pay periods in order to satisfy California's compensation requirements. It is not permissible to use a monthly pay period because under Labor Code Sections 200(a) and 204(a), all earned wages, including commissions, must be paid no less frequently than semimonthly, with limited exceptions.
Further, commission wages paid in one biweekly pay period may not be attributed to other pay periods to satisfy the minimum earnings prong of the commissioned employee exemption to the overtime law (Lab. Code, § 510). Therefore, the employer could not, for example, attribute commissions paid at the end of November to the four workweeks in October. Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 662, 668-670.
Although it is true that the commissioned employee exemption has a federal counterpart in 29 U.S.C. section 207(i), “[w]e have previously cautioned against ‘confounding federal and state labor law’ … ‘… where the language or intent of state and federal labor laws substantially differ.’ ” (Martinez v. Combs, (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, 68.) Unlike state law, federal law does not require an employee to be paid semimonthly... It also permits employers to defer paying earned commissions so long as the employee is paid the minimum wage in each pay period... In light of these substantial differences from California law, reliance on federal authorities to construe state regulations would be misplaced.
In conclusion, we hold that an employer satisfies the minimum earnings prong of the commissioned employee exemption only in those pay periods in which it actually pays the required minimum earnings. An employer may not satisfy the prong by reassigning wages from a different pay period.
Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 662, 669-670.
What it's all about - happy clients that got their settlement check for a wage claim!
In understanding the Iskanian case, you first need some background. Specifically how the United States Supreme Court decided to shut down class action lawsuits. So, we need to backup a tad and discuss the U.S. Supreme Court Concepcion case.
Concepcion overturned a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court decision invalidating a consumer cell phone contract that barred class arbitration. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011).
In Concepcion, the United States Supreme Court held that class actions were inconsistent with the fundamental nature of arbitration and imposed practical burdens which undermined the efficacy of arbitration. Hence, the US Supreme Court held class action waivers in arbitration agreements were enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), and any contrary state statutes or rules of law which interfered with the enforceability of those waivers were preempted by the FAA. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 351–352 (2011).
The US Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Concepcion prevents consumers from bringing class-action suits against corporations is all part of the scheme of the US Supreme Court to protect American companies from class action lawsuit and take away the keys to American juries and American justice protecting injured consumers. Make no mistake about it - the fix is in. You have been screwed.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion is “nothing other than a conservative majority favoring the interests of businesses over consumers, employees and others suffering injuries,” according to UC Irvine School of Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times.
I suggest you read “Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice” - the New York Times article that details how the scheme to have the FAA trump the United States Constitution was concocted. It is truly eye-opening.
It is with this backdrop of the U.S. Supreme Court taking away consumer rights that helps one really appreciate the worker friendly California Supreme Court’s wage and hour decisions.
Shortly after Concepcion was decided, in Iskanian, the California Supreme Court found that an employee's prior agreement to waive the right to bring a “‘representative action’” does not prevent an employee from bringing a PAGA action. Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 387–388 (2014).
Note: PAGA stands for Private Attorney Generals Act. A PAGA action is fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the public and penalize employers for past illegal conduct. Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969, 986 (2009).
The aggrieved employee acts as a Private Attorney General to collect penalties from employers who violate State unpaid wage laws. Franco v. Athens Disposal Co., Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1283 (2009); Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969, 986 (2009).
An employee plaintiff suing under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, does so as the proxy or agent of the state's labor law enforcement agencies. The act's declared purpose is to supplement enforcement actions by public agencies, which lack adequate resources to bring all such actions themselves. Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969, 986 (2009).
The California Supreme Court in Iskanian found that an employee's right to bring a PAGA claim was not waivable and that in preventing any waiver the PAGA did not conflict with and was not preempted by the FAA. The California Supreme Court analogized a PAGA action to qui tam actions, in which a private party brings an action on behalf of a governmental agency.
“A PAGA representative action is therefore a type of qui tam action. ‘Traditionally, the requirements for enforcement by a citizen in a qui tam action have been (1) that the statute exacts a penalty; (2) that part of the penalty be paid to the informer; and (3) that, in some way, the informer be authorized to bring suit to recover the penalty.’ The PAGA conforms to these traditional criteria, except that a portion of the penalty goes not only to the citizen bringing the suit but to all employees affected by the Labor Code violation. The government entity on whose behalf the plaintiff files suit is always the real party in interest in the suit.” Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 382 (2014).
The California Supreme Court in Iskanian was very cognizant of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Concepcion. Thus, the California Supreme Court in Iskanian took some pains to illustrate how a PAGA claim did not interfere with arbitration and hence was not preempted by the FAA.
Mendiola is another worker protection California Supreme Court case. Mendiola involved California wage and hour claims brought by security guards who regularly patrolled construction sites for eight hours on weekdays and sixteen hours on weekends, and who were required to reside, uncompensated, in an employer-provided trailer for eight hours after each shift and remain on-call. Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 833, 837.
The Supreme Count in Mendiola held that these on-call hours were "hours worked" for the purposes of California's Wage Order 4, and that the employer "could not exclude 'sleep time'" from the compensable hours in the security guards' 24-hour shifts. Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 833, 838. The fact that guards could engage in limited personal activities does not lessen the extent of CPS's control. It is the extent of employer control here that renders on-call time compensable hours worked under Wage Order 4. Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 833, 842.
In reaching this result, the California Supreme Court rejected the employer's argument that federal DOL regulations furnished the appropriate definition for hours worked under California's wage order. Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 833, 842-844.
Importantly, was the California Supreme Court emphasizing that it had previously "cautioned against confounding federal and state labor law," the California Supreme Court ruled that the language of Wage Order 4 did not evidence the state Industrial Welfare Commission's intent to incorporate, by reference, federal law and regulations. Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 833, 847.
In the Kilby California Supreme Court case, workers were seeking to enforce the Wage Orders provisions that employers meet their duty to provide suitable seating. “Whether an employee is entitled to a seat under [Wage Order] section 14(A) depends on the totality of the circumstances. Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 1, 19.
There is no principled reason for denying an employee a seat when he spends a substantial part of his workday at a single location performing tasks that could reasonably be done while seated, merely because his job duties include other tasks that must be done standing.
Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 1, 17.
Courts should look to the actual tasks performed, or reasonably expected to be performed, not to abstract characterizations, job titles, or descriptions that may or may not reflect the actual work performed. Tasks performed with more frequency or for a longer duration would be more germane to the seating inquiry than tasks performed briefly or infrequently.
Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 1, 16- 18.
If the nature of the work reasonably permits seated work, section 14(A) unambiguously states employees “shall be provided with suitable seats.” There is no language suggesting that an employee must additionally show a particular type of seat would fulfill that requirement. An employer seeking to be excused from the requirement bears the burden of showing compliance is infeasible because no suitable seating exists.
Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 1, 24.
The California Supreme Court in Augustus held that the same duties to provide meal breaks also apply to rest breaks. And employees are entitled to a net 10 minutes rest break at a suitable resting facility. If an employer fails to meet their duty an employee is entitled to an hour’s pay under California Labor Code Section 226.7. Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257, 265.
I had the winning Supreme Court brief in the Augustus case. Meaning, the California Supreme Court ruled as I urged it to do in the Augustus case. I actually disagreed with one of the key concessions that the workers attorney made in the case, and the California Supreme Court agreed with my argument, protecting workers.
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 257, 270 (2016).
And again, do you notice the citation to the Brinker decision? Candidly, I think the Supreme Court was frustrated with the Appellate court’s decision in the Augustus case, the tortured Supreme Court brief filed by the employer, the similarly tortured Supreme Court amicus briefs filed by all the employer groups and even the Plaintiff’s Supreme Court brief filed in the case.
What they require instead is that employers relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time, and relieve their employees of all duties, including the obligation that an employee remain on call.
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 257, 272 273 (2016).
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 257, 267 (2016).
Bill Turley was called "California's Leading Wage and Hour Class Action Lawyer"
The California Supreme Court laid out the employers duty to provide discovery in wage claims, by deciding that employees have the the right to getting the names of their co-employees in a Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) case. And, when employees bring PAGA cases, they can bring the case for all of the company employees state-wide. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 559.
Williams is a strong worker protection case because it shows that the California Supreme Court realizes that wage cases are won with evidence. The court mandating employers provided the contact information of co-employees is a huge step in proving that your employer owes you - and your fellow co-employees - wages.
Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 558.
A uniform policy may be a convenient or desirable way to show commonality of interest in a case where class certification is sought, but it is not a condition for discovery, or even success, in a PAGA action, where recovery on behalf of the state and aggrieved employees may be had for each violation, whether pursuant to a uniform policy or not. (See Lab. Code, § 2699(g)(1).) This is not to say uniform policies play no role in PAGA cases; proof of a uniform policy is one way a plaintiff might seek to render trial of the action manageable. But nothing in PAGA or our privacy precedents suggests courts can or should condition disclosure of contact information, which might lead to proof of a uniform or company wide policy, on prior proof of a uniform or company wide policy.
In Alvarado, the California Supreme Court ruled in employees favor in how to calculate regular rate of pay. Under California law, your overtime rate, double time rate, meal and rest premium rate and reporting time rate are all based upon your “regular rate of pay.” Your “regular rate of pay” is not simply your regular rate of pay or straight time rate. Instead, your regular rate of pay is calculated based upon all of the compensation your make during each respective pay period.
The divisor for purposes of calculating the per-hour value of defendant's attendance bonus should be the number of nonovertime hours actually worked in the relevant pay period, not the number of nonovertime hours that exist in the pay period. Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California (2018) 4 Cal.5th 542, 568.
“Regular rate of pay, which can change from pay period to pay period, includes adjustments to the straight time rate, reflecting, among other things, shift differentials and the per-hour value of any nonhourly compensation the employee has earned.” Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California, 4 Cal. 5th 542, 554 (2018).
These requirements are more protective of workers than federal law, which does not require premium pay for workdays in excess of eight hours. Moreover, it is well settled that federal law does not preempt state law in this area, and therefore state law is controlling to the extent it is more protective of workers than federal law. Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California (2018) 4 Cal.5th 542, 554.
...the worker should be considered an employee and the hiring business an employer under the suffer or permit to work standard in wage orders.
The hiring entity's failure to prove any one of these three prerequisites will be sufficient in itself to establish that the worker is an included employee, rather than an excluded independent contractor, for purposes of the wage orders. Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, 958-964.
In Troester, the employee had various duties that he had to perform after he clocked out related to closing the store such as setting the alarm, exiting the store and locking the front door. Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829, 836. These duties generally took the employee 4-10 minutes a shift. Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829, 843. The trial court, in relying on the de minimis doctrine from the FLSA (Federal wage law) held that the time was not compensable. Meaning, it is such a small amount of time that the federal law excused the non-payment of wages for these small amounts of time. Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829, 834.
An employer that requires its employees to work minutes off the clock on a regular basis or as a regular feature of the job may not evade the obligation to compensate the employee for that time by invoking the de minimis doctrine. As the facts here demonstrate, a few extra minutes of work each day can add up. According to the Ninth Circuit, Troester is seeking payment for 12 hours and 50 minutes of compensable work over a 17-month period, which amounts to $102.67 at a wage of $ 8 per hour. That is enough to pay a utility bill, buy a week of groceries, or cover a month of bus fares. What Starbucks calls “de minimis” is not de minimis at all to many ordinary people who work for hourly wages.
Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829, 847.
Perhaps, the foregoing paragraph is one of the most ample proof of the California Supreme Court understanding working folk and showing their hearts are in the right place.
And importantly, the California Supreme Court once again in Troester found that the IWC had not adopted the FLSA (read: Federal law) in interpreting California wage law. Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829, 835.
Here, the DLSE's adoption of the federal de minimis rule appears to be based on the general proposition that federal case law construing the FLSA “may sometimes provide guidance to state courts in interpreting the IWC Orders.” (DLSE Opn. Letter No. 1988.05.16, at p. 1.) But we will not presume the IWC intended to incorporate a less protective federal rule without evidence of such intent, and we see no sign of such intent here.
Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829, 841. (Emphasis added).
Under California law based upon the Troester case, whether it is one minute or 10 minutes, under California law you are entitled to get paid for all time that you work.
It’s all about protecting workers.
Collectively - Brinker, Ayala, Peabody, Iskanian, Mendiola, Kilby, Augustus, Williams, Alvarado, Dynamex, and Troester California Supreme Court case all stand for the proposition that the California Labor Code and California’s Wage Orders must be interpreted liberally in order to protect workers.
Time and again, the California Supreme Court has shown that it’s heart is with California workers.
These cases give you some very persuasive authority that the California Supreme Court will side with workers in your unpaid wages class action case and/or PAGA case.
These discussions and/or examples are not legal advice. All legal situations are different. These testimonials, endorsements, photos and/or discussions do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter, your particular case/ situation. Every case is different. There are any number of reasons why class actions are not certified, not won and/or PAGA actions are not successful.
Just because we have gotten great results in so many other unpaid wage cases, doesn't guarantee in particular result in other cases. Including, your wage case. Every case is different. In other words, your mileage may vary.

References: v. 
 § 510
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2699
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.