Wage and Hour Defense Blog

In a surprisingly employer-friendly decision, the California Court of Appeal recently held that voluntary, prospective written meal waivers for shorter shifts, i.e., those that are more than five but no more than six hours in total, are valid and enforceable.  In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., the Court of Appeal held that revocable, prospective meal waivers for shorter shifts are enforceable in the absence of any evidence the waivers are unconscionable or unduly coercive.

Case Background

Plaintiffs, former veterinary assistants and technicians, filed a putative class action in July 2014 against their former employer, Vicar Operating.  Plaintiffs alleged in part that Vicar Operating had violated Labor Code section 512(a) by requiring Plaintiffs and putative class members to work shifts between five and six hours without a meal period and without waiving their right to a meal period by mutual consent.  Plaintiffs argued that as a result, Vicar owed Plaintiffs and the putative class members premiums for missed meal periods.

While California employers may be generally aware of the nine requirements for wage statements, a careful review of the nuances of each of those requirements is necessary to ensure compliance under Labor Code section 226. But the inquiry does not end there. When, how, and what to do to maintain these records is equally important in maintaining compliance and thereby protecting the company against wage statement penalties.  

Required Contents—the Basics

We previously covered what California employers need to include on wage statements pursuant to Labor Code section 226(a):

1. Gross wages earned;
2. Total hours worked;
3. Certain information for employees paid on a piece-rate basis;
4. All deductions;
5. Net wages earned;
6. Pay period;
7. Employee’s name and either (a) the last four digits of the social security number or (b) employee identification number;
8. Name and address of the legal entity that is the employer; and
9. All applicable hourly rates.

The Serrano/Ducksworth defense.

If you know what I’m referring to, you don’t need to read any further.  But if you don’t, well, please read on.

A great many employment lawsuits include claims against alleged “joint employers” – for instance, a temporary staffing company and the client to which the employee was assigned, or related corporate entities that share similar names (and, perhaps, shared services, which is another issue).

And in many of those lawsuits, plaintiffs and their counsel have simply lumped the two companies together and have alleged that “defendants” engaged in unlawful conduct, without making any effort to distinguish between the two defendants, much less their alleged conduct.

With $3 million in funding from A.B. 102, California’s recent appropriations bill, the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), the administrative body charged by statute to regulate wages, hours, and working conditions, will reconvene for the first time since 2004, when it was defunded for budgetary reasons.  The IWC was established in 1913 and has gone through several changes throughout the years.  Its most recent, lasting impact on employment in California, however, consists of 17 “wage orders” regulating the wages, hours and working conditions in specific industries. 

On May 28, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a win to Walmart in a lawsuit brought by Roderick Magadia (“Magadia”) alleging violations of California’s wage statement and meal break laws.

The Ninth Circuit overturned a $102 million dollar judgment issued by United States District Judge Lucy H. Koh – comprised of $48 million in statutory damages and $54 million in civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).  It did so because it found that Magadia lacked Article III standing because he could not establish that he suffered ...