Legislature was constitutionally authorized to vest in IWC the power to impose minimum wage law requirements on public school districts

Plaintiff James Sheppard was a part-time instructor employed by defendant North Orange County Regional Occupational Program ("NOCROP").   NOCROP was created by four public school districts NOCROP is a regional occupational program established by one or more public school districts under Education Code section 52301.   During his employment, Sheppard was required to spend 20 minutes of unpaid time preparing for every hour he spent teaching. Sheppard sued NOCROP and sought compensation for his unpaid preparation time by asserting claims for violation of the minimum wage law, pursuant to the Industrial Welfare Commission's (IWC) wage order No. 4-2001 (Wage Order No. 4-2001) and Labor Code section 218, breach of contract, and quantum meruit.  To summarize a somewhat more complicated procedural history, the trial court effectively granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that neither "the wage order relied upon by the Plaintiff nor the implementing Labor Code sections expressly, or by necessary implication, obligate Defendant to pay Plaintiff hourly wages for  'preparation time' beyond the hourly wages mandated by Education Code section 45025."

In Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (December 23, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) held that "(1) by its terms, the minimum wage provision contained in Wage Order No. 4-2001 applies to Sheppard‟s employment with NOCROP; (2) the Legislature authorized the IWC to so extend the application of the minimum wage law to apply to certain public employees; and (3) the Legislature has plenary authority over public school districts in California and was not otherwise barred by the state Constitution from requiring school districts to comply with the minimum wage provision of Wage Order No. 4-2001."  Slip op., at 9.

The Court began its analysis by interpreting Wage Order 4-2001 and Labor Code section 1173.  The Court examined the sovereign powers immunity and the broad reach of employment statutes and regulations.  The Court then read Wage Order 4-2001 to impose, in clear terms, the minimum wage requirements to employees of the State or any political subdivision of the State.  Next, the Court rejected NOCROP's argument that the IWC exceeded its authority when it issues a Wage Order purporting to regulate public employees.  The Court concluded that the IWC was authorized to do so by the Legislature, which itself assumed that it had conferred such power on the IWC when it enacted Labor Code section 512.5 in 2003.

Looks like part time instructors stand to recover a good deal of unpaid wages for their uncompensated preparation time.

Second Court of Appeal holds that PAGA penalties are available for certain wage order violations

In Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1472 (2010), on an issue of first impression, the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) held that (1) violations of Wage Order No. 7, subdivision 14 are violations of section 1198; and (2) civil penalties under section 2699, subdivision (f) are available despite the fact that Commission wage order No. 7-2001 has its own general penalty provision.  (Discussed on this blog, in a very serious post, here.)  In other words, PAGA penalties are available for wage order violations, at least as far as the adequate seating requirement is concerned.  But when a Court of Appeal tackles a question of first impression, you always have to wonder whether that holdling to stand up over time.  Today, in Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (December 22, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four) agreed with their fellow justices from Division Five and held that (1) violations of a Wage Order are violations of section 1198; and (2) civil penalties under section 2699, subdivision (f) are available unless some other penalty is specifically provided for in the Wage Order.

At this point, the best business opportunity in California would be small footprint stools that can fit behind registers at retail stores.

Court certifies wage statement, late pay claims for 20,000 seasonal tax preparers working for H & R Block in California

United States District Court Judge Susan Illston (Northern District of California) certified a class action alleging violation of Labor Code §§ 203, 226 and 2699.   Lemus v. H&R Block Enterprises, LLC (N.D. Cal. December 7, 2010).  It appears from the decision that the case was trimmed down from a broader set of claims; a Fourth Amended Complaint was filed by stipulation of the parties after the motion for certification was filed.  The Court's fairly simple discussion suggests that the Court viewed these statutory violations as well-suited to class treatment.  It is interesting to see that, thus far, most plaintiffs are apparently avoiding the uncertainty of pursuing a representative action under PAGA by simply certifying that claim along with other claims.

Mileage reimbursement class certified in part; class definition corrected by Court

United States District Court Judge Susan Illston (Northern District of California) certified in part a class action alleging the failure to reimburse work-related mileage expenses.  Wilson v. Kiewit Pacific Co. (N.D. Cal. December 6, 2010).  As an initial matter, the Court refused to certify a class of "all" employees, noting that it was overbroad:

As an initial matter, plaintiff cannot seek to certify a class of “all current and former” California employees of defendant from July 6, 2006 to present. Motion at 3; Reply at 3-4. On its face, that definition is impermissibly overbroad as it includes employees who never incurred unreimbursed business mileage expenses under California law.

Slip op., at 3.  Next, the Court observed that the plaintiff did not submit evidence demonstrating that the Northern California district was operated under the same policies as the Southern California District.  The Court found the plaintiff inadequate to represent the Northern California District employees on the basis of thin evidence of any uniform policy that was actionable.

With respect to the Southern California District, the Court agreed with the defendant that the plaintiff's proposed class definition was problematic, but not for the reason argued:

The Court agrees that there is a problem with the way plaintiff has proposed to define this particular subclass, but not the ascertainability problem defendant asserts. Instead, plaintiff's proposed definition-all Southern California district employees who drove their non-company owned vehicles “over” 25/35 miles-would seem to include only those who received some reimbursement under defendant's policy and not those employees who drove under 25/35 miles but were nonetheless owed reimbursement for non-commute time under plaintiff's theories. The Court doubts plaintiff intended to exclude those employees from the proposed class.

Slip op., at 7.  The Court then revised the class definition, declaring it ascertainable and better defined:

All of defendant's past and present non-union employees working in the Southern California district at any time from July 6, 2005 to present who were not reimbursed for non-commute mileage expenses incurred in using personal vehicles to travel to off-site meetings or trainings.

Slip op., at 7.  This, in particular is very helpful to litigants.  It demonstrates an engaged Court that has provided a concrete example of how to refine and improve a class definition.

The Court found unpersuasive the defendant's argument that some class members had individual deals in place to get company cars.  The Court finished by offering some comments about the obligation to supplement witness lists provided with initial disclosures, finding that those concerns were not at issue due to the rapidly shifting nature of the plaintiff's claims.

Certiorari granted by United States Supreme Court in Wal-Mart v. Dukes

On December 6, 2010, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in what will eventually be known as Wal-Mart v. Dukes.  The Supreme Court limited review to two issues, Question I from the Petition, and a second issue included by the Court.  The Court said:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Question I presented by the petition. In addition to Question I, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: "Whether the class certification ordered under Rule 23(b)(2) was consistent with Rule 23(a)."

Question I from the Petition is as follows:

Whether claims for monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)—which by its terms is limited to injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief—and, if so, under what circumstances.

Petition, at i.  The Court declined to hear Question II, which asked, "Whether the certification order conforms to the requirements of Title VII, the Due Process Clause, the Seventh Amendment, the Rules Enabling Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23."

This decision could run the gamut from a highly fact-specific outcome, to a treatise on discrimination class actions, to a wholesale commentary on the Rule 23(a) requisites.  Considering the scope of issues covered in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart en banc decision, it's very difficult to handicap this race.

California Supreme Court activity for the week of November 29, 2010

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on December 1, 2010.   Notable results include:

• On a Petition for Review, review was denied in Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports (August 13, 201), mentioned briefly on this blog here.  [Class action ban in arbitration provision unconscionable.]   Interestingly, the California Supreme Court recently denied review in Walnut Producers v. Diamond Foods (August 16, 2010), which upheld an order striking class allegations pursuant to a class action ban in an arbitration provision.
• On a Petition for Review, review was denied in Fireside Bank Cases (pub. August 25, 2010).  [Res judicata issues in UCL action regarding alleged Rees-Levering violations.]

Ninth Circuit issues its first opinion on criteria that appellate courts should consider when deciding whether to accept an appeal of a remand order under CAFA

Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), a party may seek leave to appeal a remand order to the court of appeals, which has discretion whether to accept the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1).  While other Circuits have discussed the criteria that an appellate court should consider when deciding whether it is appropriate to hear such a discretionary appeal, the Ninth Circuit, until today, had not set forth its own set of such criteria.  In Coleman v. Estes Express Lines (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2010), the Ninth Circuit set forth criteria to guide a reviewing court.

Coleman sued both Estes West and Estes Express Lines for wage and hour violations.  After its acquisition, Estes West was an internal regional division of Estes Express Lines.  After removal, Coleman moved to remand under the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction.  Estes Express Lines argued that, as a Virginia-based company from which any relief would be obtained, the local controversy exception did not apply.  The district court granted the motion to remand, noting that courts are divided as to whether to look beyond the complaint to determine whether the local controversy exception applies.

The Ninth Circuit used this petition as an opportunity to adopt the First Circuit's list of criteria to use in evaluating applications for leave to appeal under section 1453(c)(1):

In Dental Surgeons, the First Circuit held that a key factor in determining whether to accept an appeal is “the presence of an important CAFA-related question” in the case. Coll. of Dental Surgeons, 585 F.3d at 38. Because discretion to hear appeals exists in part to develop a body of appellate law interpreting CAFA, “[t]he presence of a non-CAFA issue (even an important one) is generally not thought to be entitled to the same weight.” Id. If the CAFA-related question is unsettled, immediate appeal is more likely to be appropriate, particularly when the question “appears to be either incorrectly decided [by the court below] or at least fairly debatable.” Id.

The First Circuit also enumerated several case-specific factors, including the importance of the CAFA-related question to the case at hand and the likelihood that the question will “evade effective review if left for consideration only after final judgment.” Id. The appellate court should also consider whether the record is sufficiently developed and the order sufficiently final to permit “intelligent review.” Id. Finally, the First Circuit observed that the court should conduct the familiar inquiry into the balance of the harms. Id. at 39.

Slip op., at 19025-26.  Applied to the case before it, the Court concluded that leave to appeal was appropriate because it would advance CAFA jursiprudence:

Applying these criteria, we grant Estes Express’ application for leave to appeal. Although the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction is “narrow,” it is nonetheless an enumerated exception to a federal court’s CAFA removal jurisdiction. It is intended to “identify . . . a controversy that uniquely affects a particular locality” and to ensure that it is decided by a state rather than a federal court. See Evans v. Walter Indus., Inc., 449 F.3d 1159, 1163-64 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The question whether the district court must rely only on the pleadings or should look to extrinsic evidence will often determine whether a case will be remanded under the local controversy exception. This case thus raises an important issue of CAFA law. As the district court recognized, this is an unsettled question in this Circuit. We do not say that district court’s decision “appears to be incorrectly decided,” but the array of courts on both sides of the question indicates that it is at least “fairly debatable” and that appellate review would be useful.

Slip op., at 19026.  The Court concluded that the issue would escape appellate review if not taken now and that no harm other than delay would be suffered by the plaintiff.  It follows that we can expect guidance from the Ninth Circuit in the next year or so on this issue.

Supreme Court holds that a single statue of limitation governs Labor Code section 203 claims

California Labor Code § 203 provides that, if an employer willfully fails to timely pay final wages, “the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action therefor is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days.”  Lab. Code § 203(a).  Usually, a one-year statute of limitation governs actions to recover penalties (Code Civ. Proc. § 340(a)), but section 203 states that an employee may sue for “these penalties at any time before the expiration of the statute of limitations on an action for the wages from which the penalties arise.” Lab. Code § 203(b).  In Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. (November 18, 2010), the California Supreme Court answered two questions related to section 203 claims:  first, whether a different statute of limitation applies when an employee seeks to recover only section 203 penalties (in this case, final wages were paid late but before the filing of the action), as opposed to when an employee seeks both final wages and penalties; and, second, whether section 203 penalties recoverable as restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.).  A unanimous Supreme Court answered both questions in the negative, holding that (1) the underlying wage claim statute of limitation is tied to the 203 cause of action, and (2) since employees have no ownership interest in section 203 penalties they cannot use the UCL to recover those penalties as a form of restitution.

The Court had little difficulty concluding that a single, longer statute of limitation applies to section 203 claims:

Plaintiff urges us to conclude the Legislature intended for a single statute of limitations — the one set forth in section 203(b) — to govern the filing of any and all suits for section 203 penalties, regardless of whether a claim for unpaid final wages accompanies the claim for penalties. He contends this is the only plausible construction of section 203, and his contention has merit.  Absent explicit statutory language to the contrary, common sense would suggest that, where the Legislature has set forth a statute of limitations in one part of a statute, the prescribed limitations period governs the filing of actions provided for in another part of the same statute. In providing when “[s]uit may be filed for [section 203] penalties” (§ 203(b)), the Legislature could have employed language unambiguously limiting the application of section 203(b)‟s limitations period to those suits that seek both unpaid wages and penalties. For example, it could have provided that “[s]uit for unpaid final wages and these penalties may be filed at any time before . . . .” It did not.

Slip op., at 5-6.  The Court then spent several pages dismissing the defendant's strained construction of the Legislature's grammatical choices, concluding by remarking on the important public policy served by the prompt payment of final wages.

As for the UCL, the Court was equally quick to reach its conclusion that 203 penalties cannot be recovered by means of restitution under the UCL:

By contrast, permitting recovery of section 203 penalties via the UCL would not “restore the status quo by returning to the plaintiff funds in which he or she has an ownership interest.” (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1149.) Section 203 is not designed to compensate employees for work performed. Instead, it is intended to encourage employers to pay final wages on time, and to punish employers who fail to do so.  In other words, it is the employers' action (or inaction) that gives rise to section 203 penalties. The vested interest in unpaid wages, on the other hand, arises out of the employees' action, i.e., their labor. Until awarded by a relevant body, employees have no comparable vested interest in section 203 penalties. We thus hold section 203 penalties cannot be recovered as restitution under the UCL.

Slip op.,  at 14-15.

Compared to many others from the Supreme Court, this was a short opinion.  The direct language suggests that the Court found little over which to disagree as the opinion was prepared.  Congratulations to my colleague, Mr. Greg Karasik, on obtaining this partial reversal.

Supreme Court activity for the week of November 15, 2010

The California Supreme Court held its (usually) weekly conference on November 17, 2010.  Notable results include:

• On a Petition for Review, review was granted in  in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (July 27, 2010), covered previously here.  The issue under review is limited as follows:  "Does Labor Code section 218.5 govern attorney's fees awarded on a cause of action alleging violation of the statutorily mandated wage payment for missed meal and rest periods (Lab. Code, [sec.] 226.7), or is an attorney's fee award governed by Labor Code section 1194?"
• On a Request for Depublication, depublication was denied in Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co. (July 15, 2010).  Prior comments from this blog are here.

BREAKING NEWS: Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. decision to be released November 18, 2010

Earlier today, the California Supreme Court posted a notice of forthcoming filings, indicating that  Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. will be filed on November 18, 2010, at approximately 10:00 a.m.

In Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A., plaintiff Pineda advanced the theory that restitution of "penalties" recoverable under Labor Code section 203 (waiting time penalties) was available under the UCL because the penalty was a vested property interest due upon failure to timely pay wages.  Pineda also argued that the correct statute of limitation was that for suits to recover wages (3 years), not the statute for recovery of penalties (generally 1 year).  The Court of Appeal rejected both theories.  My earlier post about Pineda is here.