Authored by Rachel M. Hoffer

It’s a common business model in the fast-food industry: a massive restaurant company provides the menu, the marketing—including catchy slogans and a universally recognized logo—and the basic operational standards for the restaurant, and a franchisee provides the rest—including hiring, training, and firing restaurant employees. Unfortunately for the fast-food giants (the notorious FFGs, if you will), it’s also common for disgruntled employees to name them in lawsuits—particularly super-sized class-action lawsuits—against the franchisee.

In March 2014, three fast-food workers from Oakland did just that—they sued the family-owned company that operates 8 franchise restaurants in Northern California, and they brought the FFG along for the ride under a joint employment theory, serving up a complaint chock full of California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), and negligence claims. Last August, a federal judge in California dismissed the negligence claim on summary judgment and rejected the workers’ theory that the franchisee acted as the FFG’s actual agent. But the judge didn’t toss out the workers’ claims completely, finding the plaintiffs had presented enough evidence of ostensible agency to have their day in court with the FFG.

Determined to have it their way, right away, the plaintiffs settled their claims against the franchisee but moved to certify a class of more than 1,200 hourly workers who had worked at the franchisee’s eight restaurants. Unwilling to pick up the franchisee’s remaining tab, the FFG moved to deny class certification and to strike the representative PAGA claim. And the FFG did what Giants tend to do in San Francisco—it won. Last week, the judge found that the workers’ ostensible agency theory required too many individualized inquiries to be decided on a class basis.

Under an ostensible agency theory, the FFG is on the hook for the franchisee’s actions if the worker can prove: (1) in dealing with the franchisee, the worker reasonably believed the franchisee had the authority to act on the FFG’s behalf; (2) the worker’s belief was caused by something the FFG did or failed to do; and (3) the worker wasn’t negligent in relying on the franchisee’s apparent authority.

The workers argued that the questions of law or fact common to potential class members outweighed the questions that affected only individual members, and that a class action was the best way to fairly and efficiently decide their claims. In support of this argument, the workers asserted that the “belief” prong of the first requirement—that the potential class members believed the franchisee had the authority to act for the FFG—could be inferred from the circumstances. The judge wasn’t convinced that the law allows such an inference, nor was he convinced that the evidence supported such an inference. Instead, the evidence showed that class members received different information about the franchisee’s authority, and some actually understood that the FFG was not their employer. So, the question of belief had to be decided on an individual basis.

The judge also found that there was no way to determine, on a class basis, whether such a belief was reasonable and not negligent. Rather, what each worker knew (or should have known) varied depending on the circumstances. Some workers, for example, were told during orientation that the franchisee was their employer and the FFG was not. Some workers received and read documents informing them that the franchisee, not the FFG, was their employer; others either did not receive or did not read that paperwork. In other words, whether a belief was reasonable and not negligent depended on the information available to each worker.

Likewise, the judge found that reliance can’t be determined on a class-wide basis. The workers—pointing to out-of-context case law—argued that courts often presume reliance when there is no evidence that the plaintiff knew or should have known that the purported agent was not an agent of the principal. But even if that case law applies in the franchise context, the workers’ argument begged the question; the presumption couldn’t apply on a class-wide basis because, as the judge had already explained, the knew-or-should-have-known question couldn’t be answered on a class-wide basis. The order: individualized inquiries, all the way.

The workers also argued that the court should certify a class because they were seeking injunctive relief on a class-wide basis. But the judge didn’t see how an injunction against the FFG could help the franchisee’s employees, when he had found in his summary-judgment opinion that the FFG didn’t control the aspects of their employment at issue in the case. Simply put, where’s the beef?

The workers’ PAGA claim fared no better; the judge found that a representative PAGA action wouldn’t be manageable because it relied on the ostensible agency theory, which could only be established through individualized inquiries. So, while the three plaintiffs can still pursue their individual claims against the FFG on an ostensible agency theory, those are small fries compared to the representative claims they had hoped to bring on behalf of more than 1,200 other workers.

The take-home for the notorious FFGs who franchise independent restaurant owners, of course, is to stay out of the kitchen when it comes to the relationship between the franchisee and its employees. And, for the FFGs’ sake, franchisees should make sure employees know where their bread is buttered.

Co-authored by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley

Seyfarth Synopsis: In McCaster v. Darden Restaurants, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order denying class certification of claims for denial of earned vacation benefits at separation and granting summary judgment on part-time workers’ claims for accrual of benefits under policies that limited eligibility to full-time employees. The decision is an important one for vacation pay claims, as well as defense strategies to block class certification in wage & hour litigation.


Employers who offer vacation benefits have been subject to confusing and inconsistent rulings about eligibility requirements and accrual of benefits, along with litigation from enterprising plaintiffs’ class action lawyers seeking to take advantage of such uncertainty. On January 5, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit provided some welcome clarity when it rendered an employer-friendly decision in McCaster v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., No. 15-3258 (7th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017).

The Seventh Circuit ruled that eligibility requirements, like those limiting paid vacation benefits to full time employees, do not run afoul of “length of service” concepts that prohibit forfeiture of earned vacation benefits upon separation. Further, the Seventh Circuit set the bar for plaintiffs seeking to pursue such violations on a class-wide basis, holding that they may not do so without demonstrating an unlawful practice that spans the entire class of individuals subject to the vacation policy. As such, the Seventh Circuit’s opinion should have far-reaching implications.

Factual Background

Plaintiffs worked intermittently as hourly employees at Darden-owned restaurants for a period of time spanning roughly eight years. Id. at 2. McCaster worked primarily worked at a Red Lobster before June 1, 2008, and Clark primarily worked at an Olive Garden after June 1, 2008. Id. at 2-3.

During this time, Darden paid eligible employees vacation or “anniversary” pay when they reached the annual anniversary of their hiring date. Id. at 3. When an employee ceased working for the company, Darden included in the employee’s final paycheck the pro rata amount of anniversary pay he had earned prior to the date of separation. Id. Starting June 1, 2008, Darden limited vacation pay to full-time employees, defined as those who worked at least 30 hours per week. Id.

In this proposed class action, McCaster alleged that, prior to June 1, 2008, Darden failed to pay him accrued vacation pay when he left his job at Red Lobster, even though he had earned about 12 vacation hours in violation of the Wage Payment Collection Act (“IWPCA”). Id. Clark alleged that, after June 1, 2008, Darden failed to pay her vacation pay when she separated from employment. Id. at 3-4.

Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of “[a]ll persons separated from hourly employment with [Darden] in Illinois . . . who were subject to Darden’s Vacation Policy … and who did not receive all earned vacation pay benefits.” Id. at 4. The District Court rejected this definition because it described an improper fail-safe class. The District Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ proposed alternative definition because it failed to meet the requirements of Rule 23. Id.

Darden moved for partial summary judgment on Clark’s individual claim. Id. The company argued that Clark was not eligible for vacation pay during the relevant time period because she worked part-time. The District Court agreed and granted the motion. Id. at 5. McCaster subsequently settled his individual claim but reserved the right to appeal the denial of class certification. This appeal followed.

The Seventh Circuit’s Opinion

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s orders denying class certification and granting summary judgment.

At the outset, the Seventh Circuit held that, because Darden’s vacation-pay policy covered only full-time employees, Clark did not qualify for benefits. Id. at 5. Clark argued that if an employer provides paid vacation to its full-time employees on a pro rata length-of-service basis, it may not deny this same benefit to its part-time employees. The Seventh Circuit rejected Clark’s argument.

The Seventh Circuit held that Clark’s interpretation had no support in the text of the IWPCA, its implementing regulations, or in Illinois cases interpreting it: “[T]he Act merely prohibits the forfeiture of accrued earned vacation pay. Whether an employee has earned paid vacation in the first place depends on the terms of the employer’s employment policy.” Id. at 6. Because Clark did not work full time, she did not accrue benefits subject to forfeiture at separation.

The Seventh Circuit further concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification. Id. at 8. The Seventh Circuit held that, under Plaintiffs’ class definition, class membership turned on whether class members had valid claims. As such, Plaintiffs defined “a classic fail-safe class,” which the District Court properly rejected. Id. at 9.

Although Plaintiffs offered an alternative definition free from fail-safe concerns, including “[a]ll persons separated from hourly employment with [Darden] in Illinois . . . who were subject to Darden’s Vacation Policy.” the Seventh Circuit held that the District Court properly rejected it for failure to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. Id. at 10.

The Seventh Circuit concluded that Plaintiffs’ alternative class failed to satisfy the commonality requirement. Id. at 11. Whereas the proposed alternative class consisted of all separated employees from December 11, 2003, to the present, Plaintiffs failed to identify any unlawful conduct on Darden’s part that spanned the entire class and caused all class members to suffer the same injury. Plaintiffs simply argued that some separated employees did not receive all the vacation pay they were due. The Seventh Circuit noted that “[t]hat may be true, . . . But establishing those violations (if there were any) would not involve any classwide proof.” Id. at 12.

Implications For Employers

The Seventh Circuit provided welcome clarity for employers that maintain vacation policies by cutting through conflicting case law and setting the bar for class certification of supposed violations. McCaster establishes that employers may set eligibility requirements that differentiate workers and rejects the notion that part-time workers accrue vacation benefit under a policy that limits participation to full-time employees. Further, in setting a bar for certification of such cases, the Seventh Circuit made clear that the commonality requirement remains a significant threshold for plaintiffs seeking to litigate their claims on a representative basis. It rejected the notion that mere violations of a pay policy are eligible for resolution on a class basis without some evidence of a state-wide practice that caused all class members to suffer the same injury. As a result, the opinion should have far-reaching and lasting impact.

Authored by

Seyfarth Synopsis: In what many employers will see as a “break” from workplace reality, the Supreme Court, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., announced that certain “on call” rest periods do not comply with the California Labor Code and Wage Orders. As previously reported on our California Peculiarities Employment Law Blog, this decision presents significant practical challenges for employers in industries where employees must respond to exigent circumstances.


On December 23, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., affirming a $90 million judgment for the plaintiff class of security guards on their rest break claim. The Supreme Court found that the security guards’ rest breaks did not comply with the California Labor Code and Wage Orders, because the guards had to carry radios or pagers during their rest breaks and had to respond if required.

The Supreme Court took a very restrictive view of California’s rest break requirements, concluding that “one cannot square the practice of compelling employees to remain at the ready, tethered by time and policy to particular locations or communications devices, with the requirement to relieve employees of all work duties and employer control during 10-minute rest breaks.” Thus, in the Supreme Court’s view, an employers may not require employees to remain on call—“at the ready and capable of being summoned to action”—during rest breaks.

See our One Minute Memo for more details on the decision and thoughts on the implications of this case for California employers. The Augustus decision presents significant practical challenges for employers, especially in industries in which employees must be able to respond to exigent circumstances.

Workplace Solution:

The holding that “on call” rest periods are not legally permissible should prompt employers to evaluate their rest-break practices. In industries where employees must remain on call during rest periods, employers should consider seeking an exemption from the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. Lawyers in the Seyfarth California Workplace Solutions group can assist with other suggestions for responding to this decision.

Authored by Robert S. Whitman and Howard M. Wexler

Amid the uncertainty concerning the DOL’s enjoined overtime exemption rules and similar state-led efforts to increase the salary threshold, such as in New York, the Second Circuit recently gave employers an early holiday present when it resolved a long-standing split among New York federal courts and held that “New York’s law does not call for an award of New York liquidated damages over and above a like award of FLSA liquidated damages.”

Under the FLSA, an employer that underpays an employee is liable in the amount of those unpaid wages “and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages” if it did not act in good faith.  Similarly, under the NYLL, liquidated damages in the amount of 100% total wages due are mandatory unless the employer proves its good faith.  The NYLL is silent as to whether it provides for liquidated damages in cases where liquidated damages are also awarded under the FLSA.

In Chowdury v. Hamza Express Food Corp. et al., an employee challenged the damages award he received after his former employer defaulted in his lawsuit for unpaid wages under the FLSA and New York Labor Law.  The employee sought two discrete liquidated damages awards: one under the FLSA and one under the NYLL.  Noting a split among district courts as to whether such “cumulative” or “stacked” liquidated damages awards are available, the Magistrate Judge recommended denial of a cumulative award, concluding that it would be an unfair double recovery.  The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommended ruling.

The Second Circuit affirmed.  It held that “double recovery” of liquidated damages under the FLSA and NYLL was unwarranted. “Had the New York State legislature intended to provide a cumulative liquidated damages award under the NYLL, we think it would have done so explicitly in view of the fact that double recovery is generally disfavored where another source of damages already remedies the same injury for the same purpose.”  Accordingly, the court held, “In the absence of any indication otherwise, we interpret the New York statute’s provision for liquidated damages as satisfied by a similar award of liquidated damages under the federal statute.”

The decision is a big win for employers as it resolves what has frequently been a bone of contention between parties litigating (and trying to resolve) wage and hour lawsuit in New York brought under the FLSA and NYLL, and potentially could be used in other states where penalties under wage-and-hour laws serve the same purpose as the FLSA’s liquidated damages provision.  The potential exposure in New York cases is already high enough to give employers the holiday blahs:  back wages, 100% liquidated damages, 9% pre-judgment interest, a 6-year limitations period, and attorneys’ fees.  This decision at least removes the possibility that plaintiffs will claim, like George Costanza, an entitlement to “double dip.”

Happy Holidays!

NYDOLAuthored by Robert S. Whitman and Howard M. Wexler

As we all know, the revisions to the FLSA’s “white collar” exemptions will take effect December 1 and will increase the salary level required for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions to $913 per week (or $47,476 per year).  Avid wage and hour practitioners in New York have been waiting to see if the State DOL would propose a similar increase for exempt status under the NY Labor Law.

The wait is over.

On October 19, State DOL proposed amendments to its existing wage orders that would increase the salary threshold from the current $675 per week.  In keeping with the upcoming gradual increase in the State’s minimum wage levels, the proposal would raise the salary threshold in tiers:

Large Employers (11 or more employees) in New York City

  • $825.00 per week on and after 12/31/16;
  • $975.00 per week on and after 12/31/17; and
  • $1,125.00 per week on and after 12/31/18;

Small Employers (10 or fewer employees) in New York City

  • $787.50 per week on and after 12/31/16;
  • $900.00 per week on and after 12/31/17;
  • $1,012.50 per week on and after 12/31/18; and
  • $1,125.00 per week on and after 12/31/19;

Employers in Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties

  • $750.00 per week on and after 12/31/16;
  • $825.00 per week on and after 12/31/17;
  • $900.00 per week on and after 12/31/18;
  • $975.00 per week on and after 12/31/19;
  • $1,050.00 per week on and after 12/31/20; and
  • $1,125.00 per week on and after 12/31/21;

Employers Outside of New York City, Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties

  • $727.50 per week on and after 12/31/16;
  • $780.00 per week on and after 12/31/17;
  • $832.00 per week on and after 12/31/18;
  • $885.00 per week on and after 12/31/19;
  • $937.50 per week on and after 12/31/20

If these salary thresholds are adopted, the minimum requirement for exempt employees in New York will surpass the federal threshold of $973 at various points in time, the earliest on December 31, 2017 for “large” New York City employers.  However, the FLSA salary levels are subject to automatic revision every three years, beginning in 2020, based on the 40th percentile of full-time salaried workers in the region in which the salary level is lowest (historically, the South).

In addition to the increased salary threshold, the proposed Wage Orders also adjusts the amount employers can deduct for a uniform allowance and claim as a meal and tip credit in line with the gradual increase of the minimum wage toward $15.

While these are proposed amendments, we expect they will be implemented given that they track the forthcoming minimum wage increases.  The Department of Labor will receive public comments until December 3, 2016.  We will update you once the regulations become effective.

 

Authored by Simon L. Yang

Seyfarth Synopsis: When the California Supreme Court said no to PAGA waivers in its 2014 Iskanian ruling, we asked whether employers would boldly go where few have gone before and implement arbitration agreements requiring arbitration of PAGA claims. A recent California Court of Appeal decision issued in Perez v. U-Haul Company of California warrants revisiting that question.

Many employers stayed the course in 2014 and continued including PAGA waivers within their arbitration agreements, since numerous federal district courts continued disagreeing with and refusing to apply Iskanian’s logic.

And even when in 2015 the Ninth Circuit instructed federal district courts to apply Iskanian, many employers continued using arbitration agreements with PAGA waivers, since PAGA litigation could be severed and stayed while a plaintiff’s individual claims were arbitrated. If the employer prevailed on the individual claims in arbitration, the plaintiff would not be an aggrieved employee, would not have standing under PAGA, and would thus be unable to pursue mooted PAGA claims.

By 2016 plaintiffs have made the availability of that option scarcer. To avoid having to prove standing by prevailing on their individual claims before pursuing otherwise stayed PAGA claims, plaintiffs now commonly prefer to file PAGA-only lawsuits, without alleging individual claims.

The two putative Perez class representatives, however, had pursued both individual and PAGA claims. Predicting and seeking to avoid a stay of their PAGA claims, the Perez plaintiffs hopped onto the PAGA-only bandwagon by amending their complaints to allege a PAGA cause of action only—abandoning their individual claims, their roles as potential class representatives, and putative class members’ individual rights.

U-Haul fought back and sought to require arbitration of the predicate issue of whether the plaintiffs themselves had been subject to any Labor Code violations. Even though U-Haul was not seeking to preclude the PAGA cause of action but only to arbitrate the individual issues determinative of plaintiffs’ standing for their PAGA claims, the Court of Appeal rejected U-Haul’s argument. It reasoned that no individual issues remained at issue and that U-Haul’s arbitration agreement explicitly precluded arbitration of any representative issues.

Though Iskanian explicitly acknowledged that PAGA claims might be arbitrated, the Perez court then went full dictum. It opined that even if U-Haul’s arbitration agreement did not preclude its argument for arbitrating the plaintiff-specific issues determinative of PAGA standing, the PAGA cause of action could not be split between arbitration and litigation. But Iskanian doesn’t preclude this. What it precluded was the waiver of the right to pursue PAGA claims at all.

While it may be the case that an arbitration agreement cannot specify that an individual claim be created in a PAGA-only lawsuit, an arbitration agreement should be able to specify that representative claims be arbitrated—and specify that streamlined procedures be applied. Once again, will some enterprising employers consider going boldly where few have gone before?

Authored by Christopher A. Crosman

We are excited to announce the 16th edition of Seyfarth Shaw’s publication Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class ActionsAs in previous editions, this publication reviews the most commonly filed wage and hour and Labor Code class and representative claims and the development of the law over the last several years, and discusses and analyzes the various types of wage & hour class actions that affect many California employers. This new edition has been updated to reflect the latest developments in the law and promises to delight.

Download the publication using this convenient link today!

Authored by Daniel C. Whang and Simon L. Yang

Seyfarth Synopsis: When an allegedly aggrieved employee attempts both to seek compensatory relief as an individual and to impose penalties as a proxy for the California Labor Commissioner under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), the resulting comingling of the plaintiff’s interests as an individual and as a representative in the shoes of the State of California is another unsurprising byproduct of the PAGA statutory scheme. Some plaintiffs try to argue that results in one role don’t affect the other, but another court recently reminded plaintiffs that resolving their individual claims also resolves their ability to pursue representative PAGA claims.

Judge Kenneth Freeman recently confirmed that a representative plaintiff’s role as a proxy for the State of California is not unconditional and requires that the plaintiff be an “aggrieved employee.” In the recent case, the plaintiff had originally filed both class action claims as well as a representative PAGA claim alleging exempt misclassification against his employer. After being compelled to arbitrate individual wage and hour claims while the representative PAGA claim was stayed, the plaintiff accepted a statutory offer to compromise under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998, which dismissed all but his PAGA claim with prejudice.

In refusing to dismiss his PAGA claim, the plaintiff argued that his dual role as an individual and representative of the State of California meant that the dismissal of his individual claims had no impact on his ability to continue as a PAGA representative. The defendant disagreed and filed a motion for summary adjudication. Judge Freeman sided with the employer and made clear that once the plaintiff settled his individual claims, he was no longer an “aggrieved employee” under PAGA and, therefore, no longer had standing to bring a representative claim.

Judge Freeman is not alone in his view. The California Court of Appeal has previously concluded that a plaintiff who released any individual wage and hour claims he may have against his employer as part of a class action settlement cannot subsequently bring a PAGA claim based on the same alleged violations.

Since a PAGA claim can only be brought by and on behalf of “aggrieved employees,” Judge Freeman’s decision is helpful beyond just resolving claims with a PAGA representative. It also suggests “Pick Up Stix” campaigns—where an employer settles claims with individual putative class members to reduce the potential liability in the class action itself—should also be viable in PAGA lawsuits. Settling non-parties’ underlying wage and hour claims should mean that current or former employees who have chosen to participate in the campaign would no longer be “aggrieved employees” for purposes of PAGA.

Considering that PAGA claims cannot be waived in arbitration agreements and are not subject to class certification requirements, employers facing PAGA claims may feel that the courts stack the odds against them. But the recent decision from Judge Freeman provides an encouraging reminder that employers may be able to use settlements as an effective litigation strategy in PAGA actions.

Authored by Rob Whitman

Seyfarth Synopsis: Unpaid interns for Hearst magazines have been rebuffed again in their effort to be declared eligible to receive wages under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law.

In an August 24, 2016 ruling, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York held that six interns, who worked for Marie Claire, Seventeen, Cosmopolitan, Esquire, and Harper’s Bazaar, were not employees as a matter of law and granted summary judgment to Hearst. After reviewing each of their circumstances individually, the court held:

These interns worked at Hearst magazines for academic credit, around academic schedules if they had them, with the understanding that they would be unpaid and were not guaranteed an offer of paid employment at the end of the internships. They learned practical skills and gained the benefit of job references, hands-on training, and exposure to the inner workings of industries in which they had each expressed an interest.

The six named plaintiffs were the only ones remaining after the Second Circuit, in July 2015, denied their bid for class and collective certification. The court in that decision also articulated a new set of factors for determining whether unpaid interns at for-profit companies are “trainees” (who are not entitled to compensation) or “employees” (who must receive minimum wage and overtime premiums).

The Second Circuit’s decision adopted the “primary beneficiary” test to determine internship status—i.e., whether the “tangible and intangible benefits provided to the intern are greater than the intern’s contribution to the employer’s operation.” Applying that test to the Hearst interns, Judge Oetken concluded, “[w]hile [the six plaintiffs’] internships involved varying amounts of rote work and could have been more ideally structured to maximize their educational potential, each Plaintiff benefited in tangible and intangible ways from his or her internship, and some continue to do so today as they seek jobs in fashion and publishing.”

Among the factors he relied on: the relatively brief duration of the internships, typically limited to college semesters or summer breaks; the interns’ opportunities for observation and learning, such as “Cosmo U,” a program in which senior editors spoke about their career paths; and the receipt of or opportunity for academic credit.

Aside from its detailed discussion of the facts of the plaintiffs’ internships, the court’s decision, Wang v. The Hearst Corporation, is notable for two reasons:

  1. It shows the practical impact of a denial of class and collective certification. Although the court addressed the six named plaintiffs’ claims in a single opinion, it was effectively a series of rulings on each intern’s individualized circumstances. As the court noted, some of the factors—such as the receipt of college credit for the internships—weighed differently for the different plaintiffs. But in the end, the result for each of them, given the “totality of the circumstances” in their particular cases, was the same.
  2. The court’s decision applied equally to the plaintiffs’ claims under the FLSA and the NY Labor Law. This issue was left somewhat unsettled after the Second Circuit’s 2015 decision, which noted the similarities in the definitions of “employee” under the two statutes but did not explicitly say that the ruling pertained to both. Judge Oetken, following the earlier lead of a Southern District colleague, held that his ruling decided the claims under federal and NY law.

The Hearst decision is not the first to grant summary judgment under the Second Circuit’s factors. In March 2016, a Southern District Judge found that an intern for the now-late Gawker website was properly treated as such and was not entitled to wages. Despite the positive trend, these cases are highly fact-driven and do not foreclose the possibility that interns will be deemed to be employees, nor should they make for-profit employers complacent about not paying interns. But they signal that, where interns have a bona fide learning experience in coordination with their academic pursuits, they need not be paid as a matter of law.

Co-authored by Monica Rodriguez and Justin Curley

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court holds that employers must promptly pay final wages owed to employees who quit, including those who retire, or risk paying steep statutory penalties under California Labor Code section 203.

What Were the Plaintiff’s Claims?

Janis McLean worked as deputy attorney general for the California Department of Justice. In November 2010, McLean retired and filed suit in an individual and representative capacity against the State of California shortly thereafter. She alleged that the State Controller’s Office failed to pay her final wages on her last day of employment or within 72 hours of her last day after she retired.

What Do California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 Require of Employers?

California Labor Code sections 201 and 202 require employers to pay final wages owed to employees who are fired or quit. Depending on how the employment comes to an end, final wages are due immediately or within 72 hours after the last day of employment. Failure to timely pay final wages subjects employers to penalties of up to 30 days’ wages.

What Did the California Supreme Court Decide?

The California Supreme Court agreed with McLean that the prompt payment provisions of California Labor Code sections 201 and 201 included protections for employees who retire. The State had demurred to the complaint, arguing that because McLean had retired from her job, she had not stated a claim for statutory penalties which applies only when employees “quit” or are “discharged.” While the trial court sustained the demurrer, the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court disagreed.

The California Supreme Court looked to the legislative purpose of the statute and noted that the statute is meant to be “liberally construed with an eye to promoting such protection” of employees. The court also considered the ordinary meaning of the word “quit” to determine whether it encompasses the word “retire,” and concluded that the word “quit” is broad enough to cover a voluntary departure through retirement.

Lessons Learned for Employers?

This decision serves as a reminder to California employers to promptly pay wages owed to their employees after termination, regardless of the method in which the employment ends–through discharge, retirement, or resignation. For those who are interested, a more in-depth review of the case is available here.