Cal. Supremes Accept Two More Employment Cases
In its last conference of February, 2006, the California Supreme Court has added another two employment cases to the list of those it will decide in forthcoming months. This brings the current count to 14 employment matters accepted for review. The two latest are:
Reimbursement. May an employer comply with its Labor Code section 2802 duty, to indemnify employees for expenses they necessarily incur in the discharge of their duties, by paying the employees increased wages or commissions instead of reimbursing them for their actual expenses? Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., S139555, review granted 2/22/06, formerly at 133 Cal.App.4th 985
Meal breaks. (1) Is a Labor Code section 226.7 claim for the required payment of “one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation” for each day that an employer fails to provide mandatory meal or rest periods to an employee (see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11010, subds. (11)(D), 12(B)) governed by the three-year statute of limitations for a claim for compensation (Code Civ. Proc., § 338) or the one-year statute of limitations for a claim for payment of a penalty (Code Civ. Proc., § 340)? (2) When an employee obtains an award on such a wage claim in administrative proceedings and the employer seeks de novo review in superior court, can the employee pursue additional wage claims not presented in the administrative proceedings? Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., S140308, review granted 2/22/06, formerly at 134 Cal.App.4th 728.
Reimbursement. May an employer comply with its Labor Code section 2802 duty, to indemnify employees for expenses they necessarily incur in the discharge of their duties, by paying the employees increased wages or commissions instead of reimbursing them for their actual expenses? Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., S139555, review granted 2/22/06, formerly at 133 Cal.App.4th 985
Meal breaks. (1) Is a Labor Code section 226.7 claim for the required payment of “one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation” for each day that an employer fails to provide mandatory meal or rest periods to an employee (see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11010, subds. (11)(D), 12(B)) governed by the three-year statute of limitations for a claim for compensation (Code Civ. Proc., § 338) or the one-year statute of limitations for a claim for payment of a penalty (Code Civ. Proc., § 340)? (2) When an employee obtains an award on such a wage claim in administrative proceedings and the employer seeks de novo review in superior court, can the employee pursue additional wage claims not presented in the administrative proceedings? Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., S140308, review granted 2/22/06, formerly at 134 Cal.App.4th 728.
