California Update: State and Federal Courts Consider PAGA Status for Meal Breaks and Salary Statement Content | Benesch
Over the past few weeks, California state and federal decisions regarding various claims related to employment in California, but particularly regarding California’s demanding payroll reporting requirements, have provided helpful and favorable advice for employers. browsing the network of employment laws and regulations in the state.
Ninth Circuit decision delivers multiple wins for Wal-Mart
On May 28, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc. The plaintiff, a former Wal-Mart employee, filed a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart, raising three claims under the California Labor Code: one claim for violation of meal breaks, another for failure to provide a statement payroll indicating the dates of the pay period at the time of termination of employment, and a third for non-inclusion of overtime adjustments for a quarterly bonus in payslips.
The court ruling addressed several important developments for pay / hour issues in California:
- An employee must sustain injuries in order to have standing to sue for a meal break violation under the California Attorney General Act (âPAGAâ).
- Final pay stubs are not insufficient simply because they are not provided upon termination of employment.
- The payslips are generally not deficient as they do not contain calculations related to certain overtime adjustments resulting from a quarterly premium.
Regarding his request for a meal break, the Applicant did not claim that he was injured by the violation, but claimed that he nevertheless had standing to make the request on behalf of his colleagues who were injured. . The Court found this argument unsuccessful, ruling that a plaintiff “does not have standing to bring an action against PAGA for[violationdespauses-repas[where] he himself was not injured.
The plaintiff received his last paycheck at the time of his termination, as required by section 201 of the California Labor Code, and also received a “final wage statement”. However, the statement of last salary did not include a summary of the working days covered by the salary, which employers are required to provide “bi-monthly or at the time of each salary payment” under Article 226 (a). (6) of the Labor Code. These dates were provided to the claimant in Wal-Mart’s regular fortnightly payroll disbursement several days later. The plaintiff alleged a violation of section 226 (a) (6), arguing that he was entitled to a breakdown of the dates covered along with his last paycheck. The Court disagreed. Citing the text of the law, which requires an employer to provide a “bimonthly or at the time of the. . . payment â, the court found that by providing the plaintiff with his pay stub according to his bi-monthly schedule, Wal-Mart had not broken the law.
Finally, Wal-Mart provided employees with quarterly performance bonuses, which under California law were wages for which Wal-Mart was required to provide an “overtime adjustment.” In the Applicant’s case, this adjustment constituted a differential of approximately $ 0.20 per hour. The plaintiff alleged that Wal-Mart’s failure to include the calculations underlying the retroactive overtime adjustment on its payslip constituted a breach of the Labor Code requirement that payslips include the âhourly rate in effect during the pay periodâ. The Court concluded otherwise, finding that the difference was never a rate of pay “in effect during” the two-week pay period reflected on the plaintiff’s pay stub, but was simply “a notional calculated hourly rate.[Â Â»afindeseconformerÃ lasectionduCodedutravailsurlesheuressupplÃ©mentaires
La Cour d’appel de Californie confirme la mÃ©thode d’inscription des heures supplÃ©mentaires sur le relevÃ© de paie de l’employeur
Dans le mÃªme ordre d’idÃ©es, le 1er juin 2021, la Cour d’appel de Californie pour le quatriÃ¨me district d’appel a jugÃ© Ã General Atomics contre Tracy Green que la dÃ©claration de salaire d’un entrepreneur du gouvernement n’enfreignait pas le Code du travail de l’Ãtat simplement parce qu’elle regroupait les heures normales et les heures supplÃ©mentaires en une seule liste payÃ©e au taux normal de l’employÃ© tout en rÃ©pertoriant toutes les heures supplÃ©mentaires Ã la moitiÃ© du taux normal. En d’autres termes, plutÃ´t que d’Ã©numÃ©rer 40 heures rÃ©guliÃ¨res au taux rÃ©gulier et 10 heures supplÃ©mentaires Ã taux et demi, l’entrepreneur indiquerait 50 heures au taux rÃ©gulier et 10 heures Ã mi-temps pour tenir compte des heures supplÃ©mentaires. prime, puisque le Â«Â tempsÂ Â» en Â«Â temps et demiÂ Â» Ã©tait dÃ©jÃ inclus dans les 50 heures qui Ã©taient rÃ©pertoriÃ©es. MathÃ©matiquement, le total des salaires et le nombre d’heures supplÃ©mentaires restent les mÃªmes. Selon la Cour, une telle distinction entre la rÃ©munÃ©ration des heures normales et des heures supplÃ©mentaires sur les bulletins de paie fournit correctement Ã un travailleur son Â« taux horaire applicable[s]As required by the California Labor Code.
Key takeaways for California employers
These recent decisions demonstrate the growing willingness of state and federal courts to accept employers’ efforts to comply with the demanding requirements of the employee-friendly California Labor Code. Employers must ensure that the payslips they issue to California employees meet stringent state requirements, especially California Labor Code 226, but do not need to change their pay slips schedule. salary for employees who resign or are laid off.