©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2023 Cal-Peculiarities | 301 wage as that term is used in section 203, which authorizes penalties to an employee who has separated from employment without being paid. … Because a section 203 claim is purely derivative of `an action for the wages from which the penalties arise,’ it cannot be the basis of a fee award when the underlying claim is not an action for wages.”). 133 Stewart v. San Luis Ambulance, Inc., No. S246255 (Cal. Jan. 3, 2018) (granting Ninth Circuit’s request to decide this issue: “Do violations of meal period regulations, which require payment of a ‘premium wage’ for each improper meal period, give rise to claims under section[] 203 … of the California Labor Code … ?”). 134 Stewart involved ambulance workers. But then on November 6, 2019, the voters approved Proposition 11, the Emergency Ambulance Employee Safety and Preparedness Act, leading the Supreme Court to conclude: “resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is no longer “necessary ... to settle an important question of law.”… We therefore dismiss consideration of the questions.” 135 Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Servs., 40 Cal. App. 5th 444, 474 (2019) (“an employer’s failure, however willful, to pay section 226.7 statutory remedies does not trigger section 203’s derivative penalty provisions for untimely wage payments”). 136 Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., 13 Cal.5th 93 (2022). 137 Id. at 116 (“Spectrum urges that the weight of lower court authority indirectly supports its view: Because the Legislature has taken no action in response to the existing case law, Spectrum argues, the Legislature has effectively acquiesced in its conclusions. Legislative acquiesence arguments of this type rarely do much to persuade; even when a clear consensus has emerged in the appellate case law, we have noted that legislative inaction supplies only a weak reed upon which to lean in inferring legislative intent.”) (cleaned up). 138 Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Servs., Inc., 88 Cal.App.5th 937 (2023). 139 Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Servs., Inc., No. S279397 (2023). 140 Lab. Code § 227.3. 141 Cinnamon Mills v. Target Corp., No. EDCV201460JGBKKX, 2020 WL 6526361, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2020) (employer underpaid vacation wages at termination by omitting incentive compensation from the calculation of the plaintiff’s “final rate of pay” at termination). 142 Lab. Code § 201. 143 Lab. Code § 202. 144 McLean v. State of California, 1 Cal. 5th 615, 624 (2016). 145 Id. (“If an employer discharges an employee or the employee quits, the employer may pay the wages earned and unpaid at the time the employee is discharged or quits by making a deposit authorized pursuant to this subdivision, provided that the employer complies with the provisions of this article relating to the payment of wages upon termination or quitting of employment.”). 146 Smith v. Superior Court (L’Oreal USA), 123 Cal. App. 4th 128, 134-35 (2004), rev’d, 39 Cal. 4th 77 (2006). 147 Smith v. Superior Court (L’Oreal USA), 39 Cal. 4th 77 (2006). 148 Lab. Code § 201.3(b) provides in part: (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) to (5), inclusive, if an employee of a temporary services employer is assigned to work for a client, that employee’s wages are due and payable no less frequently than weekly, regardless of when the assignment ends, and wages for work performed during any calendar week shall be due and payable not later than the regular payday of the following calendar week. A temporary services employer shall be deemed to have timely paid wages upon completion of an assignment if wages are paid in compliance with this subdivision. (2) If an employee of a temporary services employer is assigned to work for a client on a day-to-day basis, that employee’s wages are due and payable at the end of each day, regardless of when the assignment ends, if each of the following occurs: (A) The employee reports to or assembles at the office of the temporary services employer or other location. (B) The employee is dispatched to a client’s worksite each day and returns to or reports to the office of the temporary services employer or other location upon completion of the assignment. (C) The employee’s work is not executive, administrative, or professional, as defined in the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and is not clerical. (3) If an employee of a temporary services employer is assigned to work for a client engaged in a trade dispute, that employee’s wages are due and payable at the end of each day, regardless of when the assignment ends. (4) If an employee of a temporary services employer is assigned to work for a client and is discharged by the temporary services employer or leasing employer, wages are due and payable as provided in Section 201. (5) If an employee of a temporary services employer is assigned to work for a client and quits his or her employment with the temporary services employer, wages are due and payable as provided in Section 202. 149 SB 671, 2019 bill amending Lab. Code §§ 203, 203.1, 220, and adding Lab. Code § 201.6. 150 Lab. Code § 201.5. 151 See Lab. Code § 203. See Mamika v. Barca, 68 Cal. App. 4th 487, 492-93 (1998) (penalty provided for in section 203 is 30 workdays, not merely 30 calendar days). 152 Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Grp., 29 Cal. 4th 345, 354 & nn.2-4 (2002) (citing 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 13520: “a good faith dispute that any wages are due will preclude imposition of waiting time penalties under Section 203”). See also Choate v. Celite Corp., 215 Cal. App. 4th 1460, 1468 (2013) (employer not liable when it acted in good faith); Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 v. G&G Fire Sprinklers, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 4th 765 (2002). 153 Davis v. Morris, 37 Cal. App. 2d 269, 274-75 (1940).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4