©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2024 Cal-Peculiarities | 315 458 Hartstein v. Hyatt Corp., 82 F.4th 825 (9th Cir. 2023). 459 Lab. Code § 227.3. 460 Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc., 209 Cal. App. 4th 62, 75 (2012) (affirming summary judgment for the employer: Section 227.3 applies only to termination payout, and does NOT require that vacation be paid at the employee’s regular rate of pay during employment; “Neither Labor Code section 227.3 nor any other authority cited by plaintiffs supports the proposition that, apart from the situation where an employee is terminated with unused vacation time, a vacation benefits policy must provide for payment of vacation time at an employee’s regular rate of pay.”). 461 McPherson v. EF Intercultural Found., Inc., 47 Cal. App. 5th 243, 265 (2020). 462 Id. at 268-60. 463 Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal. 4th 1075 (2005), abrogated by Martinez v. Coombs, 49 Cal. 4th 35, 50 n.12 (2010), to the extent Reynolds limited definition of “employer” to the common law definition. 464 Reynolds, 36 Cal. 4th at 1090. 465 Id. at 1087-88, 1090. See also Bradstreet v. Wong, 161 Cal. App. 4th 1440, 1461 (2008) (where now-bankrupt corporations failed to pay earned wages, the corporate shareholders, officers, and managing agents are not personally liable for unpaid wages absent any indication that they were corporate alter egos; absent finding that employees performed labor for individuals rather than for the benefit of corporate employers, or that corporate agents appropriated corporate funds that otherwise would have paid wages, an order requiring those individuals to pay wages would not be “restitutionary,” as it would not replace any money or property that individuals took directly from employees). Bradstreet was abrogated by Martinez v. Coombs, 49 Cal. 4th 35, 50 n.12 (2010), to the extent Bradstreet followed Reynolds v. Bement as to the definition of “employer.” 466 A later Court of Appeal case, Jones v. Gregory, 137 Cal. App. 4th 798 (2006), strongly questioned the proposition that the Labor Commissioner has any more authority than a private litigant does to pursue a claim for unpaid wages against individuals in addition to the traditional employer. Id. at 805-08. This decision was abrogated by the California Supreme Court in Martinez v. Coombs, 39 Cal. 4th 35, 50 n.12 (2010), and it was disapproved of on other grounds by ZB, N.A. v. Superior Ct., 8 Cal. 5th 175 (2019). 467 Reynolds, 36 Cal. 4th at 1088-89. 468 Turman v. Superior Ct. (Koji’s Japan Inc.), 17 Cal. App. 5th 969, 986 (2017). The Court of Appeal also suggested that California’s definition of employer under the Wage Order can be as broad as the FLSA’s definition, for purposes of imposing personal liability. Id. at 987 (finding there are “similar factors applicable to determining federal joint employer liability, notwithstanding the separate definitions of the term employer under state and federal law”). Meanwhile, the trial court also “failed to address whether Parent might be a joint employer under the definitions of the term ‘employer’ applicable to plaintiffs’ claims under the unfair competition law, the tip misappropriation statute, and PAGA.” Id. at 974. 469 Id. at 980-81. 470 See Lab. Code §§ 98, 558.1. 471 Lab. Code § 558.1(b). 472 Atempa v Pedrazzani, 27 Cal. App. 5th 809, 820 (2018). 473 Espinoza v. Hepta Run, Inc., 74 Cal. App. 5th 44, 60 (2022). 474 Usher v. White, 64 Cal. App. 5th 883, 896 (2021). 475 Seviour-Iloff v. LaPaille, 80 Cal. App. 5th 427, 446 (2022). 476 Id. 477 Id. 478 Voris v. Lampert, 7 Cal. 5th 1141, 1156-58 (2019) (affirming judgment on pleadings to part-owner; “We see no sufficient justification for layering tort liability on top of the extensive existing remedies demanding that this sort of error promptly be fixed.”). 479 Kao v. Holiday, 58 Cal. App. 5th 199 (2020) (affirming award of unpaid wages, attorney fees, and costs against company and individual owners, jointly and severally, under alter ego doctrine). 480 Id. at 205 (internal citation omitted). 481 Id. (internal citation omitted). 482 SB 62, 2021 bill amending Labor Code §§ 1174.1, 2670, 2671, 2673, 2673.1, and 2675.5 and adding Labor Code § 2673.2. Labor Code § 2673.1(a) makes “a garment manufacturer, contractor, or brand guarantor” jointly and severally liable for unpaid compensation, attorney fees, and civil penalties owed to workers down the supply chain. See also Lab. Code § 2671(d) (defining various terms). 483 Martinez v. Coombs, 49 Cal. 4th 35 (2010). 484 Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 207 Cal. App. 4th 385 (2012) (reversing a summary judgment that the trial court had granted for Domino’s, the franchisor), review granted, No. S204543 (Cal. Oct 10, 2012). 485 Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 60 Cal. 4th 474 (2014). 486 229 Cal. App. 4th 1015 (2014). 487 Id. at 1020. 488 Id. at 1021. 489 Henderson v. Equilon Enter., LLC, 40 Cal. App. 5th 1111, 1121-25 (2019).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4