Wage and Hour Case Notes
| Jurisdiction | California,United States |
| Author | By Lois M. Kosch |
| Publication year | 2020 |
| Citation | Vol. 34 No. 5 |
By Lois M. Kosch
Lois M. Kosch is a partner at Wilson Turner Kosmo. She represents employers in all aspects of employment law and litigation and also serves as an arbitrator both privately and through the American Arbitration Association. Ms. Kosch is a former member of the Labor and Employment Law Section's Executive Committee.
Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 762 (2020)
Flight attendants filed a putative class action in federal court, alleging the employer violated California law by failing to pay the minimum wage for all hours worked, failing to pay all wages on a semimonthly timeframe in accordance with Labor Code section 204, and failing to provide wage statements compliant with Labor Code section 226. Plaintiffs lived in California but performed most of their work in airspace outside of California. As such, the case presented the issue of application of various state wage and hour laws to employees who worked primarily outside California's territorial jurisdiction. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit certified three unsettled questions for the California Supreme Court about the application of various California wage and hour laws, and the supreme court addressed two of them:
- Do sections 204 and 226 apply to wage payments and wage statements provided by an out-of-state employer to an employee who, in the relevant pay period, works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time?
- Does California minimum wage law apply to all work performed in California for an out-of-state employer by an employee who works in California only episodically, and for less than a day at a time?
The California Supreme Court, relying on its decision in the companion case Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 732 (2020), unanimously held that California's wage statement laws and timing of wage payments apply to employees who have their principal place of work in California. The principal place of work test is satisfied if an employee works primarily in California during a given pay period or if an employee does not work primarily in any state but has his or her base of operations in California. The employees argued that Labor Code section 226 requires documentation of the hours they work in California during a given pay period and Labor Code section 204 requires wages to be paid on a semimonthly basis even though the employees did not primarily work in California or were based out of California. The court rejected the...
To continue reading
Request your trial