Morgan v. United Retail Inc., 186 Cal. App. 4th 1136 (2010)

Amber Morgan filed this class action lawsuit against her former employer under Cal. Lab. Code § 226, alleging United Retail had violated the law because the wage statements issued by the employer listed the total number of regular hours and overtime hours separately and did not provide the sum of the regular and overtime hours as a separate line item. During her deposition, Morgan testified she was injured by United Retail’s failure to include an additional line item showing the sum of hours worked because “[i]t makes it a little difficult to count how many hours I have been working.”

The trial court granted United Retail’s motion for summary adjudication, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that “United Retail’s wage statements complied with section 226’s requirements… by showing the actual number of regular hours worked and the actual number of overtime hours worked during the applicable pay period.” See also Nordstrom Commission Cases, 186 Cal. App. 4th 576 (2010) (objections to settlement of class action involving payment of net sales commissions and PAGA claims were properly overruled); Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 186 Cal. App. 4th 1361 (2010) (employer may recover its attorney’s fees for successful defense of claim for failure to provide rest periods as required under the wage orders); cf. United States v. Hunter, 2010 WL 3274397 (9th Cir. 2010) (former employee who committed mail fraud and various additional crimes while posing as a licensed nurse was required to provide restitution to former employers in the form of repayment of the salaries she received from them).