wage claim in California

2014L.Rev. 383, 396.) “[I]f an employer fails to pay wages in the amount, time, or manner required by contract or statute, the employee may seek administrative relief by filing a wage claim with the [Labor Commissioner] or, in the alternative, may seek judicial relief by filing an ordinary civil action for breach of contract and/or for the wages prescribed by statute.” (Post v. Palo/Haklar & Associates (2000) 23 Cal.4th 942, 946 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 671 , 4 P.3d 928 ] (Post).) With respect to the first alternative, the Labor Commissioner has broad authority to reject, investigate, adjudicate, or litig

2014L.Rev. 383, 396.) “[I]f an employer fails to pay wages in the amount, time, or manner required by contract or statute, the employee may seek administrative relief by filing a wage claim with the [Labor Commissioner] or, in the alternative, may seek judicial relief by filing an ordinary civil action for breach of contract and/or for the wages prescribed by statute.” (Post v. Palo/Haklar & Associates (2000) 23 Cal.4th 942, 946 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 671 , 4 P.3d 928 ] (Post).) With respect to the first alternative, the Labor Commissioner has broad authority to reject, investigate, adjudicate, or litig

2013Here, by contrast, the Legislature adopted the Berman protections specifically to provide a “speedy, informal, and affordable method of resolving wage claims.” (Cuadra, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 858 .) Whereas in Italian Colors “the individual suit that was considered adequate to assure ‘effective vindication’ of a federal right before adoption of class-action procedures did not suddenly become ‘ineffective vindication’ upon their adoption” (Italian Colors, at p. __ [ 133 S.Ct. at p. 2311 ]), here the Legislature enacted the Berman protections “as a means of affording an employee with a meritori

2013In Cuadra , the court unanimously said: “The Berman hearing procedure is designed to provide a speedy, informal, and affordable method of resolving wage claims.” (Cuadra, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 858 .) In Lolley , the court unanimously said the fee-shifting provision in the Berman statutes “serves the legislative purpose of discouraging unmeritorious appeals of wage claims, thereby reducing the costs and delays of prolonged disputes.” (Lolley, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 376 .) And in Sonic I, the court said the benefits afforded to employees by the Berman statutes are “chiefly designed to reduce

2019(See Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094 , 1109-1113, 1115, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 880 , 155 P.3d 284 [overtime payment and meal and rest break pay recoverable under section 226.7 represents both the economic and "noneconomic injuries employees suffer from being forced to work through rest and meal periods"]; Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562 , 578, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 ["Before the PAGA was enacted, an employee could recover damages, reinstatement, and other appropriate relief but could not collect civil penalties " (italics added) ].) With respect

2019(See Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094 , 1109-1113, 1115, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 880 , 155 P.3d 284 [overtime payment and meal and rest break pay recoverable under section 226.7 represents both the economic and "noneconomic injuries employees suffer from being forced to work through rest and meal periods"]; Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562 , 578, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 ["Before the PAGA was enacted, an employee could recover damages, reinstatement, and other appropriate relief but could not collect civil penalties " (italics added) ].) With respect

2013(Cuadra v. Millón (1998) 17 Cal.4th 855, 858 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 687 , 952 P.2d 704 ] (Cuadra), disapproved on other grounds in Samuels v. Mix (1999) 22 Cal.4th 1, 16 , fin. 4 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 273 , 989 P.2d 701 ].) “In brief, in a Berman proceeding the commissioner may hold a hearing on the wage claim; the pleadings are limited to a complaint and an answer; the answer may set forth the evidence that the defendant intends to rely on, and there is no discovery process; if the defendant fails to appear or answer no default is taken and the commissioner proceeds to decide the claim, but may grant a

2013(Cuadra v. Millón (1998) 17 Cal.4th 855, 858 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 687 , 952 P.2d 704 ] (Cuadra), disapproved on other grounds in Samuels v. Mix (1999) 22 Cal.4th 1, 16 , fin. 4 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 273 , 989 P.2d 701 ].) “In brief, in a Berman proceeding the commissioner may hold a hearing on the wage claim; the pleadings are limited to a complaint and an answer; the answer may set forth the evidence that the defendant intends to rely on, and there is no discovery process; if the defendant fails to appear or answer no default is taken and the commissioner proceeds to decide the claim, but may grant a

2023During the hearing, which lasted several 2 As the court explained in Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2011) 51 Cal.4th 659 (Sonic I ), such a hearing is commonly referred to as a Berman hearing, in which “‘the employee may seek administrative relief by filing a wage claim with the commissioner pursuant to a special statutory scheme codified in sections 98 to 98.8. [This] option was added by legislation enacted in 1976 (Stats. 1976, ch. 1190, §§ 4-11, pp. 5368-5371) and is commonly known as the “Berman” hearing procedure after the name of its sponsor.’ [Citation.]” (Sonic I, supra, at pp. 671

2023During the hearing, which lasted several 2 As the court explained in Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2011) 51 Cal.4th 659 (Sonic I ), such a hearing is commonly referred to as a Berman hearing, in which “‘the employee may seek administrative relief by filing a wage claim with the commissioner pursuant to a special statutory scheme codified in sections 98 to 98.8. [This] option was added by legislation enacted in 1976 (Stats. 1976, ch. 1190, §§ 4-11, pp. 5368-5371) and is commonly known as the “Berman” hearing procedure after the name of its sponsor.’ [Citation.]” (Sonic I, supra, at pp. 671

2013If an employee appeals, however, the employer is not entitled to attorney fees and costs if the employee receives an award greater than zero on the wage claim following a new trial in the superior court.” (Sonic, at p. 1435.) The purpose of Labor Code section 98.2(c) is to promote the finality of the Labor Commissioner’s decisions in wage claims by discouraging frivolous and unmeritorious appeals to the court by either party, “thereby reducing the costs and delays of prolonged disputes, by imposing the full costs of litigation on the unsuccessful appellant.” (Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group (200

2012The decision therein is binding upon the parties thereto and takes the place of and completely nullifies the former determination of the matter.’ [Citation.]” (Cardenas v. Mission Industries (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 952, 960 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 247 ], disapproved on another ground in Smith v. Rae-Venter Group, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 370 .) To recover attorney fees under section 98.2, subdivision (c), the appealing party must be “unsuccessful in the appeal,” or unsuccessful following the new trial on the wage claim.

2014Nonetheless, when confronted with the myriad individual facts asserted by employers in support of the executive exemption as a defense to a wage claim, courts at all levels have struggled to answer the question central to certification of a class — that is, “whether the theory of recovery advanced by the proponents of certification is, as an analytical matter, likely to prove amenable to class treatment.” (Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 327 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 906 , 96 P.3d 194 ] (Sav-On); accord, Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, 28 [ 172 C

2014Nonetheless, when confronted with the myriad individual facts asserted by employers in support of the executive exemption as a defense to a wage claim, courts at all levels have struggled to answer the question central to certification of a class — that is, “whether the theory of recovery advanced by the proponents of certification is, as an analytical matter, likely to prove amenable to class treatment.” (Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 327 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 906 , 96 P.3d 194 ] (Sav-On); accord, Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, 28 [ 172 C

2023During the hearing, which lasted several 2 As the court explained in Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2011) 51 Cal.4th 659 (Sonic I ), such a hearing is commonly referred to as a Berman hearing, in which “‘the employee may seek administrative relief by filing a wage claim with the commissioner pursuant to a special statutory scheme codified in sections 98 to 98.8. [This] option was added by legislation enacted in 1976 (Stats. 1976, ch. 1190, §§ 4-11, pp. 5368-5371) and is commonly known as the “Berman” hearing procedure after the name of its sponsor.’ [Citation.]” (Sonic I, supra, at pp. 671

2017The arbitration clause in his employment contract appears to have been very similar to that in the Agreement. ( Id. at pp. 669, 680, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 58 , 247 P.3d 130 ; see *515 Sonic II , supra , 57 Cal.4th at p. 1146 , 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 269 , 311 P.3d 184 .) In Sonic II , the Supreme Court acknowledged that Sonic I 's holding of per se unconscionability was inconsistent with the United States Supreme Court's intervening decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333 , 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 179 L.Ed.2d 742 . ( Sonic II , supra , 57 Cal.4th at p. 1141 , 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 269 , 311 P.3d

2019The employee may seek judicial relief by filing an ordinary civil action against the employer for breach of contract and/or for the wages prescribed by statute. (§§ 218, 1194.) Or the employee may seek administrative relief by filing a wage claim with the commissioner pursuant to a special statutory scheme codified in sections 98 to 98.8." ( Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075 , 1084, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 483 , 116 P.3d 1162 ( Reynolds ), abrogated on other grounds in Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35 , 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 514 , 231 P.3d 259 .) Regardless of the legal theory advanced, an empl

2019The employee may seek judicial relief by filing an ordinary civil action against the employer for breach of contract and/or for the wages prescribed by statute. (§§ 218, 1194.) Or the employee may seek administrative relief by filing a wage claim with the commissioner pursuant to a special statutory scheme codified in sections 98 to 98.8." ( Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075 , 1084, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 483 , 116 P.3d 1162 ( Reynolds ), abrogated on other grounds in Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35 , 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 514 , 231 P.3d 259 .) Regardless of the legal theory advanced, an empl

2026(Dane-Electric, supra, 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 764 .) The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s denial of an award of attorney’s fees under the contract provision, holding “that unless the trial court finds the wage claim was brought in bad faith, Labor Code section 218.5, subdivision (a) … prohibits, as a matter of law, an award of attorney fees to a nonemployee prevailing party for successfully defending a wage claim that is inextricably intertwined with a claim subject to a contractual prevailing party attorney fees provision.

2025(See, e.g., Dane Elec Corp., USA v. Bodokh (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 761, 774 [“unless the trial court finds the wage claim was brought in bad faith, [Labor Code] section 218.5[, subdivision ](a) prohibits, as a matter of law, an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party for successfully defending a wage claim that overlaps with claims subject to a contractual prevailing party attorney fees provision”]; Wood v. Santa Monica Escrow Co. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1186 , 1189– 1191 [elder abuse statute, Welf. & Inst.

2025By precluding an employer from even filing a notice of appeal without an undertaking, the employee does not have to expend time and money in procuring a dismissal or enduring trial de novo proceedings pending the ruling, thus furthering the purpose of ‘reduc[ing] the costs and risks of pursuing a wage claim,’ ‘deter[ring] employers from unjustifiably prolonging a wage dispute by filing an unmeritorious appeal,’ and ultimately ‘ensuring that workers are paid wages owed.’ ” (Palagin, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 137 .) As an initial matter, we reject the Center’s argument that section 98.2’s und

2022In any event, we agree with the court’s conclusion in Palagin that “even if the jurisdictional undertaking requirement did affect the availability of the trial de novo process for employers, by no means does it deprive the employer of a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the employee’s wage claim.” (Palagin, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 138 .) As the court observed, the “primary process for deciding wage claims is not the trial de novo reflected in section 98.2, but the administrative procedure reflected in section 98; requiring a timely bond for a trial de novo does nothing to minimize

2014(Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2011) 51 Cal.4th 659, 671-672 (Sonic), judgment vacated and case remanded on another ground (2011) 565 U.S. ___ [ 132 S.Ct. 496 ]; Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094 , 1114- 1115 (Murphy).) Within 90 days, the Commissioner may proceed with the employee’s wage claim by way of an administrative “Berman hearing,” conducted by a deputy commissioner.

2013(Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2011) 51 Cal.4th 659, 671-672 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 58 , 247 P.3d 130 ] (Sonic), judgment vacated and case remanded on another ground (2011) 565 U.S. _ [ 181 L.Ed.2d 343 , 132 S.Ct. 496 ]; Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1114-1115 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 880 , 155 P.3d 284 ] (Murphy).) Within 90 days, the Commissioner may proceed with the employee’s wage claim by way of an administrative “Berman hearing,” conducted by a deputy commissioner.

2025(OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 121 .) This is commonly known as the “Berman” hearing procedure, after the name of the legislation’s sponsor.

2023(OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 136 ; see Sanchez, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 911 .) OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, supra, 8 Cal.5th 111 , provides significant guidance on how to evaluate the agreement here because it involved the fairness of an agreement, strikingly similar to the one at issue here, that was used to try and compel the arbitration of an employee’s wage claims in lieu of a Berman hearing.

2023But even in the employment context, parties to arbitration are “permitted to agree to something less than the full panoply of discovery provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.05.” ( Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 105–106.) 12 one, involving an employee’s wage claim.

2013(See Armendariz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 103, fn. 8 .) We therefore find the argument that, because the Legislature intended an employee to have the option of a Berman hearing when a wage claim arises, the Legislature also must have intended to permit employers to require employees to waive that option as a condition of employment, to be unpersuasive.” (Sonic I, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 682-683, fn. omitted.) For the reasons above, we held that a Berman waiver in the context of a predispute arbitration agreement violates public policy.

2019Courts have uniformly recognized that such unilateral fee-shifting statutes "reflect a considered legislative judgment that prevailing defendants should not receive fees." ( Turner v. Association of American Medical Colleges (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1047 , 1061, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 395 ( Turner ).) The sentence in section 218.5(a) permitting a prevailing nonemployee to recover attorney fees only if the trial court finds the wage claim was brought in bad faith was added by Senate Bill No. 462 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.).

2019Courts have uniformly recognized that such unilateral fee-shifting statutes "reflect a considered legislative judgment that prevailing defendants should not receive fees." ( Turner v. Association of American Medical Colleges (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1047 , 1061, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 395 ( Turner ).) The sentence in section 218.5(a) permitting a prevailing nonemployee to recover attorney fees only if the trial court finds the wage claim was brought in bad faith was added by Senate Bill No. 462 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.).

2019(See Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094 , 1109-1113, 1115, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 880 , 155 P.3d 284 [overtime payment and meal and rest break pay recoverable under section 226.7 represents both the economic and "noneconomic injuries employees suffer from being forced to work through rest and meal periods"]; Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562 , 578, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 ["Before the PAGA was enacted, an employee could recover damages, reinstatement, and other appropriate relief but could not collect civil penalties " (italics added) ].) With respect

2019(See Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094 , 1109-1113, 1115, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 880 , 155 P.3d 284 [overtime payment and meal and rest break pay recoverable under section 226.7 represents both the economic and "noneconomic injuries employees suffer from being forced to work through rest and meal periods"]; Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562 , 578, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 ["Before the PAGA was enacted, an employee could recover damages, reinstatement, and other appropriate relief but could not collect civil penalties " (italics added) ].) With respect

2013In Cuadra, the court unanimously said: ―The Berman hearing procedure is designed to provide a speedy, informal, and affordable method of resolving wage claims.‖ (Cuadra, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 858 .) In Lolley, the court unanimously said the fee-shifting provision in the Berman statutes ―serves the legislative purpose of discouraging unmeritorious appeals of wage claims, thereby reducing the costs and delays of prolonged disputes.‖ (Lolley, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 376 .) And in Sonic I, the court said the benefits afforded to employees by the Berman statutes are ―chiefly designed to reduce th

2013In Cuadra , the court unanimously said: “The Berman hearing procedure is designed to provide a speedy, informal, and affordable method of resolving wage claims.” (Cuadra, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 858 .) In Lolley , the court unanimously said the fee-shifting provision in the Berman statutes “serves the legislative purpose of discouraging unmeritorious appeals of wage claims, thereby reducing the costs and delays of prolonged disputes.” (Lolley, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 376 .) And in Sonic I, the court said the benefits afforded to employees by the Berman statutes are “chiefly designed to reduce

2021Code, § 459; Fink v. Shemtov (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1171, 1173 [court may take judicial notice of prior unpublished opinions in related appeals on its own motion].) Labor case Rebecca filed a wage claim against Anthony for housekeeping and personal care services, later amending her claim to name Lupe.

2020Code, § 459; Fink v. Shemtov (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1171, 1173 [court may take judicial notice of prior unpublished opinions in related appeals on its own motion].) Labor case Rebecca filed a wage claim against Anthony for housekeeping and personal care services, later amending her claim to name Lupe.

2017The arbitration clause in his employment contract appears to have been very similar to that in the Agreement. ( Id. at pp. 669, 680, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 58 , 247 P.3d 130 ; see *515 Sonic II , supra , 57 Cal.4th at p. 1146 , 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 269 , 311 P.3d 184 .) In Sonic II , the Supreme Court acknowledged that Sonic I 's holding of per se unconscionability was inconsistent with the United States Supreme Court's intervening decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333 , 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 179 L.Ed.2d 742 . ( Sonic II , supra , 57 Cal.4th at p. 1141 , 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 269 , 311 P.3d

2017The arbitration clause in his employment contract appears to have been very similar to that in the Agreement. ( Id. at pp. 669, 680, 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 58 , 247 P.3d 130 ; see *515 Sonic II , supra , 57 Cal.4th at p. 1146 , 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 269 , 311 P.3d 184 .) In Sonic II , the Supreme Court acknowledged that Sonic I 's holding of per se unconscionability was inconsistent with the United States Supreme Court's intervening decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333 , 131 S.Ct. 1740 , 179 L.Ed.2d 742 . ( Sonic II , supra , 57 Cal.4th at p. 1141 , 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 269 , 311 P.3d

2016(See Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 696 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 775 ] [Court of Appeal may order retrial on limited issues if such can be separately tried without prejudice to litigants in order to preserve the results of trial on issues as to which error has not been shown].) 27 DISPOSITION The judgment in Farmers’s favor on appellant’s claim for wrongful termination is affirmed.

2016(See Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 696 [Court of Appeal may order retrial on limited issues if such can be separately tried without prejudice to litigants in order to preserve the results of trial on issues as to which error has not been shown].)”; page 43, a new footnote is inserted after “shown].)” containing the following text: “Had Farmers not invited the court’s error in seeking a directed verdict on the wage claim, it would have been compelled to defend against that claim in light of the jury’s finding that appellant was Farmers’s employee.

2022A jurisdictional undertaking requirement therefore poses no barrier to a fair adjudication of the wage claim, but merely conditions the availability of a further trial de novo process that the Legislature does not have to provide at all.” (Ibid.) We find the reasoning of Palagin persuasive and conclude that the bond requirement under section 98.2 did not deprive 17 Ernst of due process.11 (Cf. Cardinal Care, supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at p. 1023 [rejecting “appellants’ suggestion that the limited 10- day time period for obtaining an undertaking deprived them of substantive due process.”]; Burkes, s

2020(Palagin, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 138 [“even if the jurisdictional undertaking requirement did affect the availability of the trial de novo process for employers, by no means does it deprive the employer of a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the employee’s wage claim”]; Burkes, supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p. 347 [same].) Second, we cannot accept appellants’ characterization of these awards as a “massive windfall,” as that assumes a view of the merits that is, at best, premature.

2016An employee seeking to recover under Labor Code section 2802 for business expenses paid out of pocket must show that the expenditures were “necessarily expended] in direct consequence of the discharge of the employee’s duties.” (Grissom v. Vons Companies, Inc. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 52, 57 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 808 ], italics omitted.) However, that burden does not apply to the wage claim presented here, where appellant established that Farmers took deductions for apparently business-related expenses directly from his paychecks.

2016An employee seeking to recover under Labor Code section 2802 for business expenses paid out of pocket must show that the expenditures were “necessarily expended] in direct consequence of the discharge of the employee’s duties.” (Grissom v. Vons Companies, Inc. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 52, 57 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 808 ], italics omitted.) However, that burden does not apply to the wage claim presented here, where appellant established that Farmers took deductions for apparently business-related expenses directly from his paychecks.