302 | 2024 Cal-Peculiarities ©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 125 Lab. Code § 206.5. 126 Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 42 Cal. 4th 217, 227 (2007). 127 On–Line Power, Inc. v. Mazur, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1079, 1085 (2007). 128 See, e.g., Sciborski v. Pac. Bell Directory, 205 Cal. App. 4th 1152, 1166 (2012); Lindell v. Synthes USA, 155 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (E.D. Cal. 2016). 129 Lab. Code § 204. 130 Lab. Code § 210. 131 On-Line Power, Inc. v. Mazur, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (2007) (citing Lab. Code § 218.5). See generally Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Grp., 29 Cal. 4th 345, 350 (2002) (employee denied wages may sue both for breach of contract and for violation of Labor Code). 132 Lab. Code § 212. 133 Lab. Code § 213(d). 134 DLSE Opinion Letter 2008.07.07. 135 Ling v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 245 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 1261 (2016) (“We understand that the remedy for a section 226.7 violation is an extra hour of pay, but the fact that the remedy is measured by an employee’s hourly wage does not transmute the remedy into a 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.”). 136 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 … ?”). 137 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.” 138 Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. 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”). 139 Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 13 Cal. 5th 93 (2022). 140 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 acquiescence 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). 141 Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 88 Cal. App. 5th 937 (2023). 142 Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 15 Cal. 5th 1056 (2024). 143 Lab. Code § 227.3. 144 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). 145 Lab. Code § 201. 146 Lab. Code § 202. 147 McLean v. State of Cal., 1 Cal. 5th 615, 624 (2016). 148 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.”). 149 Smith v. Superior Ct. (L’Oreal USA), 123 Cal. App. 4th 128, 134-35 (2004), rev’d, 39 Cal. 4th 77 (2006). 150 Smith v. Superior Ct. (L’Oreal USA), 39 Cal. 4th 77 (2006). 151 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.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4