Cal-Peculiarities: How California Employment Law is Different - 2023 Edition

©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2023 Cal-Peculiarities | 27 22 Lab. Code § 200.5(a). In 2013, the Court of Appeal held that, as long as a claimant is consistently pursuing remedies in any forum— administrative or judicial—the statute of limitations on a wage claim will be subject to equitable tolling, but this decision was depublished by the California Supreme Court. Bain v. Tax Reducers, Inc., 219 Cal. App. 4th 110 (2013), rev. denied and ordered not to be officially published, No. S213850 (Cal. Dec 11, 2013). 23 AB 1003, Penal Code § 487m. 24 Lab. Code § 98.2. 25 Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, 51 Cal. 4th 659, 678, 695 (2011), vacated, 132 S. Ct. 496 (2011). 26 563 U.S. 333 (2011). 27 Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, 57 Cal. 4th 1109, 1146 (2013). 28 Lab. Code § 98.2(a). 29 Williams v. FreedomCard, Inc., 123 Cal. App. 4th 609, 615 (2004) (employer found liable for failure to pay wages waived right to appeal Labor Commissioner’s award of unpaid wages by failing to post surety bond or file declaration of indigency). 30 Lab. Code § 98.2(b). In years past, employers would sometimes timely appeal from DLSE orders within the 10-day statutory deadline, but not post the bond or cash deposit until later, because of financial or practical difficulties. But now the 10-day deadline applies to the undertaking requirement as well as the notice of appeal. Palagin v. Paniagua Constr., Inc., 222 Cal. App. 4th 124, 140 (2013). 31 Lab. Code § 98.2(b). Burkes v. Robertson, 26 Cal. App. 5th 334, 347 (2018); Palagin v. Paniagua Constr., Inc., 222 Cal. App. 4th 124, 126 (2013). 32 Lab. Code § 98.2(b). 33 Li v. Department of Indus. Relations, 53 Cal. App. 5th 877 (2020). 34 Cardinal Care Mgmt., LLC v. Afable, 47 Cal. App. 5th 1011 (2020). 35 Lab. Code § 98.1(c). 36 Lab. Code 98.4. 37 Lab. Code 98.2(c). 38 Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Grp., 29 Cal. 4th 345, 370 (2002) (before amendment of Labor Code section 98.2(c), either party seeking de novo appeal of Labor Commissioner order, whether employer or employee, was liable for the other side’s fees and costs unless the trial court judgment was more favorable to the appealing party than was the award being appealed). 39 Lab. Code § 98.2(c) (amended effective 2004). See Progressive Concrete, Inc. v. Parker, 136 Cal. App. 4th 540, 554 (2006) (attorney fees not available to employer even though employer, after adverse ODA, succeeded in reducing the award on appeal). 40 Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 40 Cal. 4th 1094, 1114-20 (2007) (employee who claimed only overtime and waiting-time penalties before the DLSE could add, during the trial de novo on the employer’s appeal, additional claims for missing meal and rest breaks and inadequate wage statements). 41 Lab. Code § 98.7. This provision has not been held to be an employee’s exclusive remedy for discrimination of this sort. See generally § 5.7.2. 42 AB 1947, 2020 bill amending Lab. Code § 98.7(a)(1) (“Any person who believes that they have been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner may file a complaint with the division within one year after the occurrence of the violation. The one-year period may be extended for good cause.”). 43 Lab. Code § 1195.5. 44 See www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Manual-Instructions.htm (visited Apr. 20, 2023). 45 Tidewater Marine W., Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cal. 4th 557, 576 (1996) (no deference owed to DLSE’s Enforcement Manual, because it was not promulgated in conformity with Administrative Procedures Act); see also McFarland v. Guardsmark, LLC, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 121617 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (holding that employee who agrees to on-duty meal break can wave second meal break when working more than 10 hours and not fewer than 12, and rejecting contrary interpretation set forth in DLSE Manual as “void regulation”), aff’d, 588 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2009); Areso v. CarMax, Inc., 195 Cal. App. 4th 996, 1007 (2011) (“we afford no deference to the statement in the DLSE manual,” because it was not properly adopted); California Sch. of Culinary Arts v. Lujan, 112 Cal. App. 4th 16, 27-28 (2003) (rejecting as void a long-standing DLSE “underground regulation” limiting professional exemption for teachers to teachers in colleges that offer a baccalaureate degree). 46 Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 87 Cal. App. 4th 805, 815 (2001) (quoting Monzon v. Schaefer Ambulance Serv., 224 Cal. App. 3d 16, 30 (1990)). 47 E.g., Hudgins v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 34 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1126 (1995) (rejecting DLSE opinion letter as contrary to settled law and as relying on a single out-of-state case that was itself “poorly reasoned”). 48 Lab. Code §§ 96, 98. 49 Lab. Code §§ 96.8, 238, 238.2, 238.3, 238.4, 238.5, and 558.1. 50 Lab. Code §§ 558, 1197, 1197.1, and 2802. 51 SB 306, 2017 bill adding Lab. Code §§ 98.74, 1102.61, 1102.62. 52 Lab. Code § 98.74(a). 53 SB 229, 2019 bill amending Lab. Code § 98.74 (establishing procedures and deadlines to follow when adjudicating or contesting a citation).

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4