25 California opinions name it 3 courts 2003–2026 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Armenta v. Osmose, Inc.green2 sentences2025(See Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 ; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 .) Bluford and Gonzalez recognized that employees must be separately compensated for rest periods and other nonproductive times at the legal minimum wage or contractual hourly rate, and that a system wherein the employer meets the minimum wage requirement by averaging hourly compensation does not comply with the law. ( Bluford, supra, at p. 872 ; Gonzalez, supra, at pp. 48-49 .) In Gonzalez, the court held that an employer’s piece-rate system of paying automotive service technicians more than minimum 2025(See Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 ; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 .) Bluford and Gonzalez recognized that employees must be separately compensated for rest periods and other nonproductive times at the legal minimum wage or contractual hourly rate, and that a system wherein the employer meets the minimum wage requirement by averaging hourly compensation does not comply with the law. ( Bluford, supra, at p. 872 ; Gonzalez, supra, at pp. 48-49 .) In Gonzalez, the court held that an employer’s piece-rate system of paying automotive service technicians more than minimum | 2 | 8 |
Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.green2 sentences2025(Gonzalez, at pp. 48-49, citing Armenta, at p. 324.) Our holding in Armenta on this point established “the no- borrowing rule[.]” (Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 762 , 781 (Oman).) That rule provides that “[w]hatever the task or period promised as a basis for compensation . . . , an employer must pay no less than the minimum wage for all hours worked. [Citation.] The employer must satisfy this obligation while still keeping any promises it has made to provide particular amounts of compensation for particular tasks or periods of work. [Citation.] For all hours worked, employees 2021Further, Certified Tire did so without borrowing from wages that were promised under the applicable compensation agreement, as prohibited by Oman. ( Oman, supra, 9 Cal.5th at pp. 781-783.) Thus, based on the undisputed facts regarding the manner in which technicians were compensated under Certified Tire's TCP, plaintiffs have not established that Certified Tire violated the minimum wage requirement and rest period requirement in Wage Order 4. 16 For the same reason, there is no merit to the dissent’s contention that “Certified Tire’s technicians are being paid less than minimum wage— indeed, i | 2 | 4 |
Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.green2 sentences2019Rather, the court considered whether an employee prevailing on a claim for compensation for missed rest periods could recover attorneys' fees under section 1194. ( Kirby , at p. 1254, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 173 , 274 P.3d 1160 .) That the minimum wage requirement would not function as a salary setting statute for the City is illustrated by the record. 2019Rather, the court considered whether an employee prevailing on a claim for compensation for missed rest periods could recover attorneys' fees under section 1194. ( Kirby , at p. 1254, 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 173 , 274 P.3d 1160 .) That the minimum wage requirement would not function as a salary setting statute for the City is illustrated by the record. | 2 | 3 |
cluster 242green2 sentences2026(Markel, at p. 803; see Lorenzo, supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at p. 276.) And in Alcazar II, the Ninth Circuit merely adopted, “in all . . . respects,” the portion of the three-judge panel’s decision “holding that the [ministerial] exception applies to the minimum-wage claim at issue.” 18 (Alcazar II, supra, 627 F.3d at p. 1290 .) But the panel’s decision, in turn, relied primarily on a quote from McClure v. Salvation Army (5th Cir. 1972) 460 F.2d 553 (McClure) to justify its application of the exception to bar the plaintiff’s minimum wage claim: “Just as the initial function of selecting a minister 2025(Markel, at p. 803.) Meanwhile, Alcazar II merely adopted, “in all . . . respects,” the portion of the three-judge panel’s decision “holding that the [ministerial] exception applies to the minimum-wage claim at issue.” (Alcazar II, supra, 627 F.3d at p. 1290.) The panel’s decision, in turn, relied primarily on a quote from McClure v. Salvation Army (5th Cir. 1972) 460 F.2d 553 (McClure), the first published case to articulate the ministerial exception, to justify its application of the exception to bar the plaintiff’s minimum wage claim. | 2 | 2 |
Flowers v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authoritygreen2 sentences2025(E.g., Flowers v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 66, 79 [absent a specific exemption, a wage order covering “[e]very employer” was broad enough to subject public employers to a minimum wage requirement]; Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 289 [a wage order’s general terms applied to a public employer in the absence of an exemption]; Guerrero v. Superior Court (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 912 ; Marquez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th 552 [same].) In other words, Krug argues, general terms like “employer” include 2023(E.g., Flowers v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 66, 79 (Flowers) [absent a specific exemption, a wage order covering “[e]very employer” was broad enough to subject public employers to a minimum wage requirement]; Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 289 [a wage order’s general terms applied to a public employer in the absence of an exemption]; Marquez v. City of Long Beach (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 552 [same].) In other words, Krug argues, general terms like “employer” include public employers unless | 2 | 2 |
Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.green2 sentences2007In Taylor , the court looked to a line of United States Supreme Court cases which “held that findings made during a labor arbitration are not binding in an employee lawsuit asserting federal statutory causes of action designed to protect workers: a discrimination claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1974) 415 U.S. 36 , 44—56 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 147 , 94 S.Ct. 1011 ] (Alexander), a minimum wage violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act in Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 728, 738-741 [ 67 L.Ed.2d 641 , 101 S.Ct. 1437 ] (Ba 2007In Taylor , the court looked to a line of United States Supreme Court cases which “held that findings made during a labor arbitration are not binding in an employee lawsuit asserting federal statutory causes of action designed to protect workers: a discrimination claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1974) 415 U.S. 36 , 44—56 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 147 , 94 S.Ct. 1011 ] (Alexander), a minimum wage violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act in Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 728, 738-741 [ 67 L.Ed.2d 641 , 101 S.Ct. 1437 ] (Ba | 2 | 2 |
McDonald v. City of West Branchgreen2 sentences2007In Taylor , the court looked to a line of United States Supreme Court cases which “held that findings made during a labor arbitration are not binding in an employee lawsuit asserting federal statutory causes of action designed to protect workers: a discrimination claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1974) 415 U.S. 36 , 44—56 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 147 , 94 S.Ct. 1011 ] (Alexander), a minimum wage violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act in Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 728, 738-741 [ 67 L.Ed.2d 641 , 101 S.Ct. 1437 ] (Ba 2007In Taylor , the court looked to a line of United States Supreme Court cases which “held that findings made during a labor arbitration are not binding in an employee lawsuit asserting federal statutory causes of action designed to protect workers: a discrimination claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1974) 415 U.S. 36 , 44—56 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 147 , 94 S.Ct. 1011 ] (Alexander), a minimum wage violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act in Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 728, 738-741 [ 67 L.Ed.2d 641 , 101 S.Ct. 1437 ] (Ba | 2 | 2 |
Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors CA2/2green2 sentences2025(See Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 ; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 .) Bluford and Gonzalez recognized that employees must be separately compensated for rest periods and other nonproductive times at the legal minimum wage or contractual hourly rate, and that a system wherein the employer meets the minimum wage requirement by averaging hourly compensation does not comply with the law. ( Bluford, supra, at p. 872 ; Gonzalez, supra, at pp. 48-49 .) In Gonzalez, the court held that an employer’s piece-rate system of paying automotive service technicians more than minimum 2025(See Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 ; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 .) Bluford and Gonzalez recognized that employees must be separately compensated for rest periods and other nonproductive times at the legal minimum wage or contractual hourly rate, and that a system wherein the employer meets the minimum wage requirement by averaging hourly compensation does not comply with the law. ( Bluford, supra, at p. 872 ; Gonzalez, supra, at pp. 48-49 .) In Gonzalez, the court held that an employer’s piece-rate system of paying automotive service technicians more than minimum | 1 | 3 |
Mrs. Billie B. McCLURE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the SALVATION ARMY, Defendant-Appelleegreen2 sentences2026(Markel, at p. 803; see Lorenzo, supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at p. 276.) And in Alcazar II, the Ninth Circuit merely adopted, “in all . . . respects,” the portion of the three-judge panel’s decision “holding that the [ministerial] exception applies to the minimum-wage claim at issue.” 18 (Alcazar II, supra, 627 F.3d at p. 1290 .) But the panel’s decision, in turn, relied primarily on a quote from McClure v. Salvation Army (5th Cir. 1972) 460 F.2d 553 (McClure) to justify its application of the exception to bar the plaintiff’s minimum wage claim: “Just as the initial function of selecting a minister 2025(Markel, at p. 803.) Meanwhile, Alcazar II merely adopted, “in all . . . respects,” the portion of the three-judge panel’s decision “holding that the [ministerial] exception applies to the minimum-wage claim at issue.” (Alcazar II, supra, 627 F.3d at p. 1290.) The panel’s decision, in turn, relied primarily on a quote from McClure v. Salvation Army (5th Cir. 1972) 460 F.2d 553 (McClure), the first published case to articulate the ministerial exception, to justify its application of the exception to bar the plaintiff’s minimum wage claim. | 1 | 2 |
Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.green2 sentences2007In Taylor , the court looked to a line of United States Supreme Court cases which “held that findings made during a labor arbitration are not binding in an employee lawsuit asserting federal statutory causes of action designed to protect workers: a discrimination claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1974) 415 U.S. 36 , 44—56 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 147 , 94 S.Ct. 1011 ] (Alexander), a minimum wage violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act in Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 728, 738-741 [ 67 L.Ed.2d 641 , 101 S.Ct. 1437 ] (Ba 2007In Taylor , the court looked to a line of United States Supreme Court cases which “held that findings made during a labor arbitration are not binding in an employee lawsuit asserting federal statutory causes of action designed to protect workers: a discrimination claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1974) 415 U.S. 36 , 44—56 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 147 , 94 S.Ct. 1011 ] (Alexander), a minimum wage violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act in Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1981) 450 U.S. 728, 738-741 [ 67 L.Ed.2d 641 , 101 S.Ct. 1437 ] (Ba | 1 | 2 |
Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.green2 sentences2026(See Alamo Foundation, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 302 ; see also Dynamex, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 960 , quoting Alamo Foundation, at p. 302; § 1194, subd. (a) [providing that the minimum wage requirement applies “[n]otwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage”].) A criminal defendant can, however, rationally choose a voluntary rehabilitation program as a condition of a probation agreement to avoid a jail or prison sentence. 2026(See Alamo Foundation, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 302 ; see also Dynamex, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 960 , quoting Alamo Foundation, at p. 302; § 1194, subd. (a) [providing that the minimum wage requirement applies “[n]otwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage”].) A criminal defendant can, however, rationally choose a voluntary rehabilitation program as a condition of a probation agreement to avoid a jail or prison sentence. | 1 | 1 |
Hurger v. Hyatt Lake Resort, Inc.green2 sentences2021(Hurger, supra, 170 Or.App. at p. 326, fn. 2 .) As we explained in footnote 26, ante, we also need not decide whether an employer’s failure to pay final minimum wages by payday to an employee who is discharged or quits, would constitute a violation of Wage Order No. 14 because it is undisputed that that did not occur in this case. 31 issuance of a section 1197.1 citation, would constitute a minimum wage violation.38 The Division also suggests that to affirm the superior court’s judgment would constitute a ruling that the Division cannot use the citation procedure (§ 1197.1) to impose waiting t 2021(Hurger, supra, 170 Or.App. at p. 326, fn. 2 .) As we explained in footnote 26, ante, we also need not decide whether an employer’s failure to pay final minimum wages by payday to an employee who is discharged or quits, would constitute a violation of Wage Order No. 14 because it is undisputed that that did not occur in this case. 31 issuance of a section 1197.1 citation, would constitute a minimum wage violation.38 The Division also suggests that to affirm the superior court’s judgment would constitute a ruling that the Division cannot use the citation procedure (§ 1197.1) to impose waiting t | 1 | 1 |
| Industrial Welfare Commission v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Martinez v. Combsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bell v. Vista Unified School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Aleman v. Airtouch Cellulargreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marquez v. City of Long Beach
green
2 sentences2025(E.g., Flowers v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 66, 79 [absent a specific exemption, a wage order covering “[e]very employer” was broad enough to subject public employers to a minimum wage requirement]; Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 289 [a wage order’s general terms applied to a public employer in the absence of an exemption]; Guerrero v. Superior Court (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 912 ; Marquez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th 552 [same].) In other words, Krug argues, general terms like “employer” include 2025(E.g., Flowers v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 66, 79 [absent a specific exemption, a wage order covering “[e]very employer” was broad enough to subject public employers to a minimum wage requirement]; Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 289 [a wage order’s general terms applied to a public employer in the absence of an exemption]; Guerrero v. Superior Court (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 912 ; Marquez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th 552 [same].) In other words, Krug argues, general terms like “employer” include | 4 | 2019–2025 |
California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2019Savings , supra , 54 Cal.3d at p. 17 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 569 , 812 P.2d 916 .) This "limited interference ... is substantially coextensive with the state's underlying regulatory interest." ( Id. at p. 25, 283 Cal.Rptr. 569 , 812 P.2d 916 .) The City contends the minimum wage requirement is not tailored to the state's interest because it does not exclude charter cities from its ambit. 2019Savings , supra , 54 Cal.3d at p. 17 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 569 , 812 P.2d 916 .) This "limited interference ... is substantially coextensive with the state's underlying regulatory interest." ( Id. at p. 25, 283 Cal.Rptr. 569 , 812 P.2d 916 .) The City contends the minimum wage requirement is not tailored to the state's interest because it does not exclude charter cities from its ambit. | 3 | 2019–2021 |
County of Riverside v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2019(Marquez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 574 .) It explained that “a prevailing wage law has a greater impact on local control . . . because by requiring payment of wages prevailing in an industry locally, the law is ‘effectively a salary setting statute,’ ” whereas the minimum wage requirement “does not effectively determine the wage for all employment relationships it regulates, but rather, sets as a floor the lowest permissible hourly rate of compensation.” (Ibid.) In this way “the impact of the minimum wage law is consistent with the Supreme Court’s conclusion [that] ‘the Legislature may regu 2019As applied here, the substantive measures of the Act set a floor, which limits a charter city’s ability to reduce the percentage of units designated for sale or lease at the specified affordability levels when surplus land is sold or leased for residential housing purposes. (§§ 54222.5, 54233.) The regulation impinges “ ‘to a limited extent’ ” upon this aspect of local control (County of Riverside, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 287 ) but does not otherwise dictate terms or limit decisionmaking authority. | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Alcazar v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop
green
2 sentences2026(Markel, at p. 803; see Lorenzo, supra, 116 Cal.App.5th at p. 276.) And in Alcazar II, the Ninth Circuit merely adopted, “in all . . . respects,” the portion of the three-judge panel’s decision “holding that the [ministerial] exception applies to the minimum-wage claim at issue.” 18 (Alcazar II, supra, 627 F.3d at p. 1290 .) But the panel’s decision, in turn, relied primarily on a quote from McClure v. Salvation Army (5th Cir. 1972) 460 F.2d 553 (McClure) to justify its application of the exception to bar the plaintiff’s minimum wage claim: “Just as the initial function of selecting a minister 2025(See Alcazar I, supra, 598 F.3d at p. 674 .) But McClure, like Hosanna-Tabor and Our Lady, involved only claims for employment discrimination and wrongful termination. | 2 | 2025–2026 |
Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program
green
2 sentences2025(E.g., Flowers v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 66, 79 [absent a specific exemption, a wage order covering “[e]very employer” was broad enough to subject public employers to a minimum wage requirement]; Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 289 [a wage order’s general terms applied to a public employer in the absence of an exemption]; Guerrero v. Superior Court (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 912 ; Marquez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th 552 [same].) In other words, Krug argues, general terms like “employer” include 2023(E.g., Flowers v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 66, 79 (Flowers) [absent a specific exemption, a wage order covering “[e]very employer” was broad enough to subject public employers to a minimum wage requirement]; Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 289 [a wage order’s general terms applied to a public employer in the absence of an exemption]; Marquez v. City of Long Beach (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 552 [same].) In other words, Krug argues, general terms like “employer” include public employers unless | 2 | 2023–2025 |
Bluford v. Safeway Inc.
green
2 sentences2025(See Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 ; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 .) Bluford and Gonzalez recognized that employees must be separately compensated for rest periods and other nonproductive times at the legal minimum wage or contractual hourly rate, and that a system wherein the employer meets the minimum wage requirement by averaging hourly compensation does not comply with the law. ( Bluford, supra, at p. 872 ; Gonzalez, supra, at pp. 48-49 .) In Gonzalez, the court held that an employer’s piece-rate system of paying automotive service technicians more than minimum 2025(See Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 ; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th 36 .) Bluford and Gonzalez recognized that employees must be separately compensated for rest periods and other nonproductive times at the legal minimum wage or contractual hourly rate, and that a system wherein the employer meets the minimum wage requirement by averaging hourly compensation does not comply with the law. ( Bluford, supra, at p. 872 ; Gonzalez, supra, at pp. 48-49 .) In Gonzalez, the court held that an employer’s piece-rate system of paying automotive service technicians more than minimum | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of Sonoma
green
2 sentences2019(See City of Vista, supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 564 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 529 , 279 P.3d 1022 ; County of Riverside, supra , 30 Cal.4th at p. 282 , 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 713 , 66 P.3d 718 ; Sonoma County, supra , 23 Cal.3d at p. 302 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 903 , 591 P.2d 1 .) As such, the balance struck is " 'sensible and appropriate fashion as between local and state legislative bodies.' " ( California Fed. 2019(See City of Vista, supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 564 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 529 , 279 P.3d 1022 ; County of Riverside, supra , 30 Cal.4th at p. 282 , 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 713 , 66 P.3d 718 ; Sonoma County, supra , 23 Cal.3d at p. 302 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 903 , 591 P.2d 1 .) As such, the balance struck is " 'sensible and appropriate fashion as between local and state legislative bodies.' " ( California Fed. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of Vista
green
2 sentences2019The minimum wage requirement is in conflict with the City's resolution and MOU setting wages We must first determine the existence of an actual conflict between the state and local laws at issue "before proceeding to the difficult state *568 constitutional question of which law governs a particular matter." ( City of Vista, supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 559 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 529 , 279 P.3d 1022 ; accord, California Fed. 2019The minimum wage requirement is in conflict with the City's resolution and MOU setting wages We must first determine the existence of an actual conflict between the state and local laws at issue "before proceeding to the difficult state *568 constitutional question of which law governs a particular matter." ( City of Vista, supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 559 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 529 , 279 P.3d 1022 ; accord, California Fed. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Popper v. Broderick
green
2 sentences2019This case pits article XI, section 5 of the state Constitution, which grants to charter cities authority over municipal affairs, including *61 "plenary authority" to provide for the compensation of city employees, against article XIV, section 1 of the state Constitution, which provides "[t]he Legislature may provide for minimum wages and for the general welfare of employees ...." Despite the century-long history of the home rule doctrine (see Popper v. Broderick (1899) 123 Cal. 456 , 56 P. 53 ( Popper )) and the state's regulation of the minimum wage (see Stats. 1913, ch. 324, pp. 632-637), th 2019This case pits article XI, section 5 of the state Constitution, which grants to charter cities authority over municipal affairs, including *61 "plenary authority" to provide for the compensation of city employees, against article XIV, section 1 of the state Constitution, which provides "[t]he Legislature may provide for minimum wages and for the general welfare of employees ...." Despite the century-long history of the home rule doctrine (see Popper v. Broderick (1899) 123 Cal. 456 , 56 P. 53 ( Popper )) and the state's regulation of the minimum wage (see Stats. 1913, ch. 324, pp. 632-637), th | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor
green
1 sentence2026(See Alamo Foundation, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 302 ; see also Dynamex, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 960 , quoting Alamo Foundation, at p. 302; § 1194, subd. (a) [providing that the minimum wage requirement applies “[n]otwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage”].) A criminal defendant can, however, rationally choose a voluntary rehabilitation program as a condition of a probation agreement to avoid a jail or prison sentence. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Vaughn v. Phoenix House New York
green
1 sentence2026(See, e.g., Vaughn, supra, 957 F.3d at p. 146 ; Fochtman, supra, 47 F.4th at pp. 646-647.) The nonprofit, which is not responsible for the defendant’s criminal predicament, does not coerce the defendant simply by offering a court-approved program. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Guerrero v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2025(E.g., Flowers v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 66, 79 [absent a specific exemption, a wage order covering “[e]very employer” was broad enough to subject public employers to a minimum wage requirement]; Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 289 [a wage order’s general terms applied to a public employer in the absence of an exemption]; Guerrero v. Superior Court (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 912 ; Marquez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th 552 [same].) In other words, Krug argues, general terms like “employer” include | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation
green
1 sentence2023We remind Krug of the interpretive presumption at issue: “[A]bsent express words to the contrary, governmental agencies are not included within the general words of a statute.” (Wells, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 1192 .) Pursuant to this presumption, governmental agencies are not included within a general word such as “employer.” That positive indicia of Legislative intent may nevertheless bring governmental agencies within the ambit of an otherwise silent statute is an exception to this rule. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Biggs v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2021In reaching this conclusion, the hearing officer reasoned: “The [Division] relies on Biggs v. Wilson 1 F.3d 1537 (9th Cir. 1993) [(Biggs)], a case under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for the proposition that the late payment of wages constitutes a minimum wage violation. 2021The hearing officer relied on Biggs[, supra,] 1 F.3d 1537 in finding that each day wages were late meant employees were being paid nothing and therefore were not receiving minimum wage. “ . . . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Post v. Palo/Haklar & Associates
green
1 sentence2021No California or federal case has held that a minimum wage violation occurs where an employer fails to timely pay final wages upon the discharge of an employee or within commissioner.” (Post v. Palo/Haklar & Associates (2000) 23 Cal.4th 942, 946 .) Section 98’s remedial procedures are triggered by an employee’s filing of a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture, LLC
green
1 sentence2021(Vaquero, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 112 .) Employees compensated on either basis must, in addition to their regular compensation, receive separate payment at a rate greater than the minimum wage for all time spent on tasks that do not contribute to generating a commission or piece-rate compensation.4 4 The Supreme Court in Oman expressed no opinion concerning “a scenario in which a minimum wage floor was written into a contract that otherwise promised pay by the piece,” although it noted that the Legislature had since addressed that scenario and “codified for piece-rate workers a statutory ri | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Diaz v. Grill Concepts Servs., Inc.
green
1 sentence2021As relevant to this appeal, 1 Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Labor Code. 2 A section 203 penalty “is called a waiting time penalty because it is awarded for effectively making the employee wait for his or her final paycheck.” (Diaz v. Grill Concepts Services, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 859, 867 .) 2 section 1197.1, subdivision (b) authorizes the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (the Division)3 to issue a citation to the employer if the Division “determines that a person has paid or caused to be paid a wage less than the minimum under applicabl | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Whitsett green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
San Francisco Labor Council v. Regents of University of California
green
2 sentences2019(Id. at p. 612, fn. 6.) As the Supreme Court observed in San Francisco Labor Council, “Prevailing wage regulations are substantially different from minimum wage statutes.” (San Francisco Labor Council, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 790 .) Indeed, a prevailing wage law has a greater impact on local control than the minimum wage law because by requiring payment of wages prevailing in an industry locally, the law is “effectively a salary setting statute.” (San Francisco Labor Council, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 790 .) By contrast, the minimum wage requirement does not effectively determine the wage for all 2019(Id. at p. 612, fn. 6.) As the Supreme Court observed in San Francisco Labor Council, “Prevailing wage regulations are substantially different from minimum wage statutes.” (San Francisco Labor Council, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 790 .) Indeed, a prevailing wage law has a greater impact on local control than the minimum wage law because by requiring payment of wages prevailing in an industry locally, the law is “effectively a salary setting statute.” (San Francisco Labor Council, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 790 .) By contrast, the minimum wage requirement does not effectively determine the wage for all | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.