Today, by a unanimous decision in Martinez v. Corky N. Combs, the California Supreme Court clarified the standard courts must use to determine who is liable as an "employer" for violations of wage and hour laws embodied in Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, including claims for unpaid or underpaid wages.We think the decision is generally favorable for employers because the Supreme Court expressly rejected on the facts before it a number of theories of liability plaintiffs sometimes assert when attempting to hold liable for wage and hour claims persons or entities other than the obvious "employer."
Miguel Martinez and others were employed by Isidro Munoz, Sr., who did business as Munoz & Sons ("Munoz"), as seasonal agricultural workers who picked and sometimes packed strawberries. After Munoz failed to pay the employees' wages for a period of weeks, the employees submitted claims to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and later filed suit against Munoz and against two businesses that regularly purchased strawberries from Munoz and against certain employees of those businesses. The employees alleged the defendants were all liable for unpaid minimum wages (Labor Code section 1194), for liquidated damages for unpaid minimum wages (section 1194.2), for unpaid contract wages (section 216) for waiting time penalties (section 203), for breach of contract, and derivative claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.).
The trial court and the Court of Appeal determined that neither the other businesses that did business with Munoz nor the employees of those businesses were liable to the employees for their claims. The employees then petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal's decision affirming the trial court's decision.
In a lengthy 56-page opinion, the Supreme Court revisited its decision in Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075 holding that a corporation's officers and directors are not personally liable for unpaid overtime compensation and concluded that it "spoke too broadly in concluding that the common law defines the employment relationship in actions under [Labor Code] section 1194. The Supreme Court now states "an examination of section 1194 in its full historical and statutory context shows unmistakably that the Legislature intended to defer to the IWC's definition of the employment relationship in actions under [section 1194]." The Supreme Court explained, nevertheless, that its holding that a corporation's officers and directors are not personally liable for wage and hour violations when acting within the scope of their employment remains in tact because that opinion "properly holds that the IWC's definition of 'employer' does not impose liability on individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency."
The Supreme Court went on to hold that the IWC's definition of "employer" does not incorporate federal law. Similarly, and potentially significantly, the Supreme Court noted also that the IWC's broader definition of the term "hours worked" was in response to enactment of the Federal Portal-to-Portal Act, "which relieved employers of the obligation to compensate employees for time spent traveling to the work site, even in an employer's vehicle, and for time spent in activities 'preliminary and postliminary' to work," and intended by the IWC to provide California employees with greater protection than Federal law provides.
Turning to the IWC' s definition of the employment relationship in the wage orders, the Supreme Court now states that under the IWC's definition, to "employ" means "(a) to exercise control over the wages, hours or working conditions, or (b) to suffer or permit to work, or (c) to engage [a person to work], thereby creating a common law employment relationship. "
Applying the above test to the facts of the case in the record before it, the Supreme Court further held:
1. Neither of the businesses that did business with Munoz had a business relationship with Munoz that allowed those businesses to "exercise control over Munoz's employees' wages and hours."
2. Neither of the businesses that did business with Munoz "suffered or permitted plaintiffs to work because neither had the power to prevent the plaintiffs employees from working." Rather, Munoz and his foreman had exclusive power to do that.
3. Neither of the businesses that did business with Munoz had a business relationship with Munoz that allowed either of them to directly or indirectly "exercise control over Munoz's employees' wages and hours." Rather, "Munoz alone, with the assistance of his foremen, hired and fired plaintiffs, trained and supervised them, determined their rate and manner of pay . . ., and set their hours, telling them when and where to report to work and when to take breaks."
4. Neither of the businesses that did business with Munoz nor the employees of one of those businesses who encouraged Munoz' employees to continue working to help Munoz and who told Munoz' employees that they would be paid once Munoz received additional payments from one of the business did not "engage to work" the employees of Munoz because the facts and circumstances made it clear that no offer of employment was being made.
5. Although employees of the businesses that did business with Munoz frequently spoke in the filed with Munoz' employees about how the strawberries were to be packed, they nevertheless did not exercise sufficient control over how services are performed and hence the working conditions of Munoz' employees because no evidence in the record showed that any of Munoz' employees thought they must obey anyone other than Munoz or Munoz' foremen.
6. The Supreme Court rejected also the plaintiffs' contention that they were entitled to recover their unpaid wages as third party beneficiaries of a contract between Munoz and one of the businesses that did business with Munoz. Because the contract at issue required Munoz to comply with all applicable laws, including "labor," the plaintiff employees argued that the business was liable to them for their claims. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, stating, "[t]he plain import of these contractual provisions is that Munoz agreed to pay his employees the wages required by law, assuming sole responsibility in the matter. . . ."
- Partner
Christopher Andre is a seasoned civil litigator who focuses his practice on civil litigation and advising and representing employers. Mr. Andre is an editor of and frequent contributor to the firm’s Labor and Employment Law ...
- Partner
Scott Dauscher is Chair of the firm’s Commercial and Complex Litigation Practice Group. He also serves as Chair of the firm’s Class Action Defense Group, managing AALRR’s extensive class action practice and its team of ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- President Biden’s Administration Halts Department of Labor’s Final Rule for Worker Classification
- Rotational Employees Can Have Their “On” And “Off” Weeks Counted Against Their FMLA Leave Entitlement
- Ninth Circuit Issues Important Decision on Per Diem Pay
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Victory for Trucking Industry: California Meal and Rest Break Rules Preempted by Federal Law as to Commercial Drivers
- They Say Never Discuss Politics In Polite Company, But How Can Employers Handle Impolitic Off-Duty Conduct?
- DOL Permits Back-of-the-Restaurant Staff to Share in Servers’ Tips
- Can California Employers Be Liable For Failure To Prevent Something That Never Happened?
- Employer’s Delay is Fatal to Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement
- California Employers: The federal Department Of Labor’s Final Rule For Worker Classifications Does Not Eliminate The Requirements Under California’s ABC Test
- Court Holds California Law Applies to Offshore Workers on Oil Platforms
Popular Categories
- (43)
- (40)
- (135)
- (22)
- (6)
- (6)
- (31)
- (26)
- (22)
- (14)
- (5)
- (6)
- (4)
- (3)
- (3)
- (14)
- (9)
- (2)
- (2)
- (1)
- (3)
- (1)
- (3)
- (1)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Christopher S. Andre
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- Alicia A. Belock
- Eddy R. Beltran
- Rex Darrell Berry
- William M. Betley
- Brigham M. Cheney
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Alfonso Estrada
- Lauren D. Fierro
- Paul S. Fleck
- Robert Fried
- L. Brent Garrett
- Carol A. Gefis
- Kieran D. Hartley
- Amber S. Healy
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Mia A. Lomedico
- Jorge J. Luna
- Michael J. Morphew
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Justin R. Peters
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Lauren B. Shelby
- Ann K. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susana P. Solano
- Ethan G. Solove
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Brian M. Wheeler
- Glen A. Williams
- Kimberley A. Worley
- Lisa C. Zaradich
Archives
2021
2020
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
2019
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011