Wage and Hour Case Notes
| Publication year | 2021 |
| Author | By Nicole R. Roysdon |
By Nicole R. Roysdon
Nicole R. Roysdon is a Senior Associate at Wilson Turner Kosmo. She is a member of the firm's Employment Law and Class Actions groups. Ms. Roysdon's practice is focused on representing employers in a variety of employment disputes, including wage and hour litigation, wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. She may be reached at nroysdon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com or 619-236-9600.
General Atomics v. Superior Court, 64 Cal. App. 5th 987 (2021)
The plaintiff filed a putative class and Private Attorney General's Act (PAGA) action alleging that General Atomics violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a) because its wage statements reflected overtime being paid at 0.5 times the regular rate of pay instead of 1.5 times the regular rate and, therefore, did not identify the correct rate of pay for overtime wages. The plaintiff did not dispute that General Atomics properly paid the plaintiff and all putative class members, whom the plaintiff sought to represent. Section 226(a) requires an employer to provide its employees with a wage statement that shows several categories of information, including "all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. . . ." General Atomics moved for summary adjudication on the ground that its wage statements complied with the law by showing the total hours worked, both overtime and regular hours, and their corresponding hourly rates, and by separately listing the overtime hours again with the additional premium rate. After the trial court denied the motion, General Atomics petitioned for a writ of mandate.
The Court of Appeal granted the petition and directed the trial court to grant summary adjudication in favor of General Atomics. Comparing General Atomics' wage statement format to the plaintiff's proposed formats, the appellate court found that General Atomics' wage statements complied with section 226(a) because they show the standard hourly rates in effect and the corresponding number of hours worked at each rate, the overtime premium rate of 0.5 times the regular rate of pay, and the total number of overtime hours worked at that rate. From this information, an employee can verify that General Atomics has properly calculated the regular rate of pay and the total pay. Therefore, General Atomics' wage statements complied with section 226(a), because they showed both the applicable hourly rates and the number of hours worked at each rate.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal determined that General Atomics' wage statements satisfied the purpose and intent of section 226 to ensure employees are provided adequate information so that they can determine whether their compensation is correct. In particular, the Court of Appeal recognized that "[w]hile other formats may also be acceptable, given the complexities of determining overtime compensation in various contexts, the format adopted by General Atomics adequately conveys the information required by statute" and "allows employees to readily determine whether their wages were correctly calculated, which is the central purpose of section 226." The Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiff's proposed format actually made it more difficult for employees to do so, especially when employees worked at multiple standard hourly rates during the same pay period.
Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021)
The plaintiff, a former Wal-Mart employee, filed a putative class action and PAGA action against Wal-Mart alleging that it violated Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a) by not including the hourly rates of pay or hours worked for adjusted overtime pay on employees' wage statements, by failing to list the pay period start and end dates on Statements of Final Pay, and by not including bonuses in meal break premium payments. The district court certified classes on the wage statement claims. Although the district court found that the plaintiff did not suffer a meal break violation, it allowed him to pursue civil penalties under PAGA for that claim. The district court then ruled in the plaintiff's favor and issued a judgment against Wal-Mart in excess of $100 million. Wal-Mart appealed.
[Page 18]
The Ninth Circuit vacated the...
To continue reading
Request your trial