California Court of Appeal Concludes That Certain Types of On-Call Scheduling Triggers Requirement to Pay Wages
On February 4, 2019, a divided panel of the California Court of Appeal issued their majority and dissenting opinion in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc. It appears to be a precedent-setting decision in California, holding that an employee scheduled for an on-call shift may be entitled to certain wages for that shift despite never physically reporting to work.
Each of California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) wage orders requires employers to pay employees “reporting time pay” for each workday “an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work.”
In Ward, the plaintiff alleged that when on-call employees contact their employer two hours before on-call shifts, they are effectively “report[ing] for work” and thus are owed reporting time pay. The employer disagreed, arguing that employees “report for work” only by physically appearing at the work site at the start of a scheduled shift. That is, the Ward employer argued that employees who merely call in and are told not to come to work are not owed reporting time pay.
Two justices of the California Court of Appeal took a public policy-centric position and agreed with the employee’s view of the law, concluding “that the on-call scheduling alleged in th[at] case triggers Wage Order 7’s reporting time pay requirements” because “on-call shifts burden employees, who cannot take other jobs, go to school, or make social plans during on-call shifts – but who nonetheless receive no compensation from [the employer] unless they ultimately are called in to work.”
After concluding that it is not clear from the phrase “report for work,” whether that means a requirement that the employee be physically present at the work site or whether it may also mean “presenting himself or herself in whatever manner the employer has directed, including, as in th[at] case, by telephone, two hours before the scheduled start of an on-call shift,” the Ward majority considered other methods of statutory construction. After considering other cases where statutes were enacted before developing technologies, the Ward majority concluded that “Wage Order 7 does not reference telephonic reporting, nor is there evidence that the IWC ever considered whether telephonic reporting should trigger the reporting time pay requirement.”
After rejecting the Ward employer’s interpretation of “report for work,” the Ward majority announced a new interpretation for the reporting time pay requirement of California’s IWC wage orders:
“If an employer directs employees to present themselves for work by physically appearing at the workplace at the shift’s start, then the reporting time requirement is triggered by the employee’s appearance at the job site. But if the employer directs employees to present themselves for work by logging on to a computer remotely, or by appearing at a client’s job site, or by setting out on a trucking route, then the employee “reports for work” by doing those things. And if . . . the employer directs employees to present themselves for work by telephoning the store two hours prior to the start of a shift, then the reporting time requirement is triggered by the telephonic contact.”
The Hon. Anne H. Egerton dissented in Ward, concluding that the “legislative history of the phrase ‘report for work’ reflects the drafters’ intent that – to qualify for reporting time pay – a retail salesperson must physically appear at the workplace: the store.” Supporting that conclusion, Justice Egerton cited a federal district court decision made by the Hon. George Wu, where he concluded that a court’s “fundamental task in interpreting Wage Orders is ascertaining the drafters’ intent, not drawing up interpretations that promote the Court’s view of good policy,” and held that “call-in shifts do not trigger reporting-time penalties, even if the scheduling practice is inconvenient and employee-unfriendly.”
Given the well-reasoned dissent, this may be a case for the California Supreme Court to review. In the interim, however, the Ward majority is arguably the precedent in California.
Following Ward, entities doing business in California will want to review their on-call scheduling and payment practices.