The Labor Commissioner and the deputies and representatives authorized by the commissioner in writing shall, upon the filing of a claim therefor by an employee, or an employee representative authorized in writing by an employee, with the Labor Commissioner, take assignments of:
(a)Wage claims and incidental expense accounts and advances.
(b)Mechanics’ and other liens of employees.
(c)Claims based on “stop orders” for wages and on bonds for labor.
(d)Claims for damages for misrepresentations of conditions of employment.
(e)Claims for unreturned bond money of employees.
(f)Claims for penalties for nonpayment of wages.
(g)Claims for the return of workers’ tools in the illegal possession of another person.
(h)Claims for vacation pay, severance pay, or other compensation supplemental to a wage agreement.
(i)Awards for workers’ compensation benefits in which the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board has found that the employer has failed to secure payment of compensation and where the award remains unpaid more than 10 days after having become final.
(j)Claims for loss of wages as the result of discharge from employment for the garnishment of
wages.
(k)Claims for loss of wages as the result of demotion, suspension, or discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises.
(l)Claims for violations of standards issued by the Fast Food Council pursuant to Part 4.5.5 (commencing with Section 1470) of Division 2.
Notes of Decisions
Barbee v. Household Auto. Fin. Corp., 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10008 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “We conclude that Labor Code section 96, subdivision (k) does not set forth an independent public policy that provides employees with any substantive rights, but rather, merely establishes a procedure by which the Labor Commissioner may assert, on behalf of employees, recognized…”
Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Grp., 58 P.3d 367 (Cal. 2002).
· cites it 2× “) Indeed, as a predicate for awarding a claim for unpaid wages, the commissioner must necessarily determine that the claimant was an employee.”
Neveu v. City of Fresno, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (E.D. Cal. 2005).
“Plaintiff responds that, pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 96 , Plaintiff “may” file a claim with the Labor Commissioner, although he is not required to do so.”
Noble v. Draper, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
“340 ] [‘Labor Code sections 96 and 98, subdivision (a), expressly allow the Labor Commissioner to take assignment of employee claims with the authority to resolve all matters within its jurisdiction’]; accord California Chamber of Commerce v.”
Creighton v. City of Livingston, 628 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2009).
“California Labor Code § 96(k) incorporates “lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises” into § 98.”
Post v. Palo/Haklar & Assocs., 4 P.3d 928 (Cal. 2000).
“340 ] [“Labor Code sections 96 and 98, subdivision (a), expressly allow the [commissioner] to take assignment of employee claims with the authority to resolve all matters within its jurisdiction.”].) Indeed, as a predicate for awarding a claim for unpaid wages, the commissioner…”
Nunez v. Bae Sys. San Diego Ship Repair Inc., 292 F. Supp. 3d 1018 (S.D. Cal. 2017).
“*1046 The Class Members' Released Claims include without limitation claims meeting the above definition(s) under any and all applicable statutes, including without limitation California Labor Code sections 96 through 98.”
Grubb & Ellis Co. v. Spengler, 26 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 901 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).
“) In 1953 the issue of whether a real estate salesperson was an employee for purposes of unemployment insurance was clearly settled by the enactment of section 650 of the Unemployment Insurance Code.”
Fleeman v. Cnty. of Kern (E.D. Cal. 2021).
· cites it 7× “5 , and “wrongful discharge for lawful off-duty conduct” in violation 12 of Cal. Lab. Code § 96 (k). (See Doc. 1 at 1, 11-14, emphasis omitted) The only distinction is that in the 13 First Claim, Fleeman did not identify a cause of action under Section 96(k).”
Fleeman v. Cnty. of Kern (E.D. Cal. 2021).
· cites it 7× “Lab. Code § 96 (k). (See Doc. 1 at 1, 11–14, emphasis omitted[.”
Napear v. Bonneville Internat'l Corp. (E.D. Cal. 2023).
· cites it 5× “Section 96(k) addresses “[c]laims for loss of wages as the result of demotion, suspension, or 24 discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 96(h) — 1 case
— Cal. Labor Code § 96(k) — 7 cases
Creighton v. City of Livingston, 628 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2009).
“California Labor Code § 96(k) incorporates “lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises” into § 98.”
Napear v. Bonneville Internat'l Corp. (E.D. Cal. 2023).
“Section 96(k) addresses “[c]laims for loss of wages as the result of demotion, suspension, or 24 discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.