17200

Subscribe to 17200 via RSS

In Sullivan v. Oracle, No. S170577 (Cal. June 30, 2011), the California Supreme Court today resolved three important questions posed by the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding California law:

(1) Does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week?

(2) Does California’s unfair competition law (UCL), Business and Professions Code section 17200, apply to the overtime work described in question one?

(3) Does section 17200 apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)?

On November 18, the California Supreme Court in Pineda v. Bank of America, No. S170758 (Cal. Nov. 18, 2010) (pdf) clarified two issues regarding so-called “waiting time penalties” (i.e., penalties under California Labor Code Section 203 associated with the late payment of final wages upon termination of employment). First, the Court ruled that a three-year statute of limitations applies to such actions, whether or not accompanied by a claim for the underlying late wages. Second, it held that waiting time penalties are not recoverable as restitution under California’s unfair competition law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (the “UCL”). While the latter ruling is marginally beneficial to employers by limiting liability under the UCL, the Court’s finding of a three-year statute of limitations for waiting time penalties dramatically expands potential employer liability.

Arias v. Superior Court, 2009 WL 1838973 (Cal. S. Ct. 2009)

Jose Arias sued his former employer, Angelo Dairy, for a number of alleged violations of the California Labor Code, including five claims that he asserted on behalf of himself as well as other current and former employees under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The trial court granted the employer’s motion to strike all…

Arias v. Superior Court, 2009 WL 1838973 (Cal. S. Ct. 2009)

Jose Arias sued his former employer, Angelo Dairy, for a number of alleged violations of the California Labor Code, including five claims that he asserted on behalf of himself as well as other current and former employees under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The trial court granted the employer’s motion to strike all…

Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 557 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2009)

The Ninth Circuit has withdrawn its published opinion in this case and certified the following questions to the California Supreme Court: (1) Does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for…

Pineda v. Bank of Am., N.A., 170 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2009)

Jorge Pineda filed this class action against Bank of America for unpaid wages and for “waiting-time” penalties under Labor Code § 203. Although Pineda gave the bank two weeks’ advance notice of his resignation, the bank failed to pay him his final pay until four days after his employment had ended. Pineda…

Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008)

Three Oracle instructors (all non-residents of California) filed this class action to recover allegedly unpaid overtime under California law for work they performed while in California. Two of the instructors were residents of Colorado and one was a resident of Arizona; all of them worked in their home states and, from time to time,…

Combs v. Skyriver Communications, Inc., 159 Cal. App. 4th 1242 (2008)

Mark Combs sued his former employer, Skyriver Communications, and Skyriver’s former interim CEO, Massih Tayebi, for violations of the California Labor Code, the Unfair Competition Law and the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Combs, who was employed as the manager of capacity planning and later as the director of network operations, alleged…

Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 154 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2007)

Anthony Estrada, a former driver for FedEx, alleged unfair business practices under Business & Professions Code § 17200, contending that the pick-up and delivery drivers were improperly classified as “independent contractors” rather than employees and, as a result, they were owed reimbursement for employment-related expenses as required by Labor Code §…