Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Wage & Hour

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Disagreeing with Turrietta v. Lyft, Inc. (2021) 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 815, this decision holds that the plaintiff in one PAGA action is sufficiently aggrieved by an unfair settlement of a different plaintiff's parallel PAGA suit to have standing to appeal from the judgment following approval of settlement in the other action--so long as the appellant became a party to… Read More

While the ABC test of employee v. independent contractor status applies retroactively, Prop. 22's classification of some gig workers as independent contractors applies only prospectively.  So GrubHub drivers, if employees under the ABC test adopted in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, are entitled to back wages for the period before Prop. 22's adoption.  The… Read More

Disagreeing with Curry v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 289 and Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1111, this decision holds that Equilon is a joint employer, at least for wage and hour regulation purposes, of the employees of the franchisees that run its gas stations.  For wage and hour purposes, joint employment is governed by the… Read More

A court has inherent authority to ensure that PAGA claims can be fairly and efficiently tried and, if necessary, may strike claims that cannot be rendered manageable. As a matter of due process, defendants are entitled to a fair opportunity to litigate available affirmative defenses, and a court’s manageability assessment should account for them.  Here, the PAGA claim was based… Read More

Labor Code 206 and 206.5 require an employer to pay an employee all wages the employer concedes are due without condition and without any release of the employee's disputed claims, if any, to other wages.  Here, the employer conceded it owed plaintiff a bonus, but before paying it sent the plaintiff a 998 offer to settle all wage claims.  Held,… Read More

The FAA applies to an arbitration clause in an employment agreement involved in interstate commerce and preempts California Labor Code 229 which forbids arbitration of wage and hour claims.  The parties did not elect out of FAA preemption by a choice of law clause in the employment contract generally choosing California law, but not specifically choosing California law regarding arbitration… Read More

Burlington forced Gallano, one of its check-out clerks, to sign a promissory note for losses on return of items by customers or mistaken pricing of goods due to other workers' errors in affixing price tags.  This opinion holds that Gallano stated viable claims against Burlington for violation of Lab. Code 2802 (which requires the employer to reimburse employees for expenses… Read More

Part of California's Prevailing Wage Law, Labor Code 1772 provides:  "Workers employed by contractors or subcontractors in the execution of any contract for public work are deemed to be employed upon public work."  Delving into the section's history and rejecting Court of Appeal decisions giving it a different interpretation, this decision holds that the section merely makes it clear that… Read More

California's Prevailing Wage Law (Lab. Code 1720(a)(1)) defines a "public work" as including construction and installation.  This decision holds that while the statute does not expressly say so, the prior common meaning of a public work--that is a physical installation on real property--provides a context for the statutory definition, confining its broad undefined terms, construction and installation, to tasks performed… Read More

The district court correctly compelled arbitration in this wage-and-hour misclassification suit by a Massachusetts Uber driver.  Even assuming Massachusetts would follow McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945, plaintiff did not seek a public injunction with McGill's meaning.  Instead, plaintiff sought only an injunction that would benefit himself and other Uber drivers, but not the general public, by requiring… Read More

The trial court correctly compelled arbitration of this Massachusetts Uber driver's wage and hour class action, based on alleged misclassification of Uber drivers as independent contractors.  For purposes of determining whether the plaintiff was a worker in interstate commerce, exempt from the FAA under 9 USC 2, the court properly considered the class of all Uber drivers nationwide, not just… Read More

If an employer fails to give its employee the required 10-minute rest breaks or 30-minute meal break, it owes the employee an hour's premium pay calculated at the employee's "regular rate of compensation." Lab. Code 226.7(c). This decision holds that "regular rate of compensation" has the same meaning than "regular rate of pay" used to compute overtime compensation. Lab. Code… Read More

This decision affirms a judgment holding that Certified Tire's method of compensating its technicians did not violate California's wage & hour laws.  The compensation formula gave each technician a base salary rate that was above the minimum wage but allowed the technician to increase his hourly rate by performing more production work that customers paid for during the work week. … Read More

Distinguishing Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California (2018) 4 Cal.4th 542, this decision holds that in calculating the "regular rate of pay" for overtime work by a "dual rate" employee, the employer is not required to use the weighted average method of computing regular rate of pay but may instead calculate regular rate of pay by using the rate-in-effect… Read More

Gov. Code 12965(b) is an exception to the normal cost provisions of CCP 1032.  Hence, when, as in this case, the plaintiff loses her FEHA claims but prevails on other claims, she is not entitled to recover costs incurred solely in relation to the FEHA claims.  Also, since the total recovery in this case was less than the amount that… Read More

When an employee is the prevailing party on claims for minimum or overtime wages, she is entitled to a reasonable attorney fee on the claim pursuant to Lab. Code 1194.  That section prevails over Lab. Code 1031, which would otherwise limit the attorney fee to 20% of the recovery if the employee recovers less than $300.  The two statutes conflict,… Read More

1 2 3 4