California Supreme Court Civil Issues Pending: Employment - Compensation & Benefits
[UPDATED THROUGH APRIL 30, 2012]
Case remanded from the USSC – Can Arbitration Over a Wage Claim be Compelled Prior to the Conclusion of the Administrative Proceedings of the Labor Commissioner? The trial court denying a motion to compel arbitration, and the Court of Appeal reversed. The California Supreme Court granted review on these issues: (1) Can a mandatory employment arbitration agreement be enforced prior to the conclusion of an administrative proceeding conducted by the Labor Commissioner concerning an employee’s statutory wage claim? (2) Was the Labor Commissioner’s jurisdiction over employee’s statutory wage claim divested by the Federal Arbitration Act under Preston v. Ferrer (2008) __ U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 978, 169 L.Ed.2d 917? Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, S174475 (opinion below B204902, formerly 174 Cal.App.4th 546), petition granted 9/9/09. The California Supreme Court issued its opinion on 2/24/11, reversing the Court of Appeal and reinstating the trial court’s order that “until there has been the preliminary non-binding hearing and decision by the Labor Commissioner, the arbitration provisions of the employment contract are unenforceable, and any petition to compel arbitration is premature and must be denied.” Update 11/3/11: The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the existing judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ___ U.S.__ (2011). Update 1/11/12: The California Supreme Court ordered to parties to submit supplemental briefing by 2/10/12 with replies due by 2/24/12. The parties requested extensions.
Can Attorney’s Fees Be Awarded on a Meal and Rest Periods Claim in Light of Labor Code § 1194? The Court limited review to the following issues: (1) Does Labor Code § 1194 apply to a cause of action alleging meal and rest period violations (Lab. Code, § 226.7) or may attorney’s fees be awarded under Labor Code § 218.5? (2) Is the court's analysis affected by whether the claims for meal and rest periods are brought alone or are accompanied by claims for minimum wage and overtime? Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., S185827 (opinion below C062306, formerly; 186 Cal.App.4th 1361), review granted 11/17/10. The petition for review is here. Update 5/11/11: Review granted in United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases, S191908. (Opinion below B221709, formerly 192 Cal.App.4th 1425), with briefing deferred pending decision in Kirby. Update 12/21/11: Review granted in United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases, S197722. (opinion below, B227556; nonpublished), with briefing delayed pending decision in Kirby. Update 1/18/12: Review granted in Zelasko-Barrett v. Brayton-Purcell, LLP, S198438 (opinion below A131601, nonpublished opinion). Briefing deferred pending the decision in Kirby. Update 2/1/12: Oral argument scheduled for March 6, 2012. The briefs are here. Update March 6, 2012: Cause argued and submitted. Update 4/30/12: Opinion issued. The Court concluded that, in light of the relevant statutory language and legislative history, that neither § 1194 nor § 218.5 authorizes an award of attorney's fees to a party that prevails on a § 226.7 claim.
Application of Prevailing Wage Law to Public Works Project of Charter City. Does California’s prevailing wage law (Lab. Code, § 1720 et seq.) apply to a charter city when it contracts to construct public works projects with municipal funds? State Building & Construction Trades Council of California v. City of Vista, S173586 (opinion below D052181, formerly 173 Cal.App.4th 567), review granted 8/19/09. The petition for review is here. Update 9/1/10: Court limits issues per CRC 8.516: “Does the Prevailing Wage Law (Lab. Code, § 1720 et seq.) apply to charter cities?” The Court excluded argument on the issue of whether application of the Prevailing Wage Law to charter cities would constitute an unfunded state mandate within the meaning of article XIIIB, section 6 of the California Constitution. Update 2/29/12: Case ordered on calendar for hearing on 4/4/12. Update 4/4/12: Cause argued and submitted.
Employer’s Duty re Meal And Rest Breaks to Hourly Workers. What is an employer’s duty to provide meal and lunch breaks to hourly employees? Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (Hohnbaum), S166350 (opinion below D049331, formerly 165 Cal.App.4th 25), review granted 10/22/08. The petition for review is here. Update 1/14/09:Review granted in Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc., S168806 (opinion below B200513, formerly 167 Cal.App.4th 1278, as modified), with briefing deferred pending the decision in the first Brinker. Update 5/13/09:Review granted in Bradley v. Networkers International LLC, S171257 (opinion below D052365, nonpublished), with briefing deferred pending a decision in the first Brinker. Update 10/13/10: Review granted in Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc., S184995 (opinion below G041702, formerly 185 Cal.App.4th 1363), with briefing deferred pending the decision in Brinker. Update 11/17/10: Review granted in Brookler v. Radioshack Corporation, S186357 (opinion below is unpublished B212893), with briefing deferred pending the decision in Brinker. Update 1/26/11: Review granted in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, S188755 (opinion below B216004, formerly 189 Cal.App.4th 751), with briefing deferred pending a decision in Brinker. Update 5/18/11: Review granted in Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., S191756. (Opinion below B214333, formerly 192 Cal.App.4th 1055), with briefing deferred pending a decision in Brinker. Update 9/28/11: Review granted in Santos v. Vitas Healthcare Corp. of California, S195866 (opinion below B222645, nonpublished), with briefing deferred until the decision in Brinker. Update 10/4/11: Oral argument is scheduled for 11/8/11. The briefs are posted here. Update 11/8/11: Case argued and submitted. Update April 11, 2012: Review granted in Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp., S200557. (opinion below D057955, formerly 202 Cal.App.4th 1232), with briefing deferred pending a decision in Brinker. Update 4/12/12: Opinion issued. The Court affirmed the certification of a rest break subclass, remanded for reconsideration of a subclass on meal breaks and found there was no basis for certification on a subclass on requirements that employee work “off the clock.” While the Court further held that trial courts were not obligated to resolve threshold issues except insofar as the class certification issue required it, the Court did conclude that while an employer had an obligation to actually relieve its employee of all duty for required breaks, the employer had no duty to ensure that no work is done.
