July 23, 2021

Volume XI, Number 204

Advertisement

July 23, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 22, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 21, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

The California Supreme Court Cooks up More Problems for Employers

In yet another blow to employers, the California Supreme Court decided, in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC,1 that the one hour of premium pay owed to employees who do not receive legally compliant meal or rest breaks must be paid at the employee’s “regular rate” (as used in the calculation of overtime), not simply the employee’s hourly rate. This decision impacts employers who pay nonexempt employees additional compensation, such as non-discretionary bonuses, shift premiums or commissions.

Ferra was a nonexempt employee who was paid a base hourly wage plus a quarterly incentive bonus. On occasion, Ferra was paid one hour of premium pay for a missed meal period, but the premium pay was calculated at her straight hourly wage rate without including amounts earned for the quarterly bonus. Loews successfully argued at summary judgment and on appeal that the one additional hour of pay at the employee’s “regular rate of compensation” required by Labor Code section 226.7 meant something different than the “regular rate of pay,” which would have required consideration of the incentive bonus as required for overtime purposes under Labor Code section 510(a).

Reviewing the legislative history, the Court found the phrase “regular rate of compensation” was intended to mimic the Fair Labor Standards Act’s term of art, “regular rate.” The Court rejected Loews’s argument that the legislature meant only to require the payment of an hourly rate of pay because the legislature had used “regular rate of compensation” in section 226.7 and “regular rate of pay” in section 510(a). The Court found that “regular rate” was a well-known term of art when it was used in the statute, but the words “pay” and “compensation” were interchangeable.

The requirement to pay one hour of an employee’s “regular rate of compensation” added teeth to the statutory meal and rest break requirements and the Court surmised that the additional one hour of pay meant to include all compensation paid to the employee. As Ferra argued, and the Court agreed, failing to include all compensation in a meal or rest break premium could penalize employees paid by piece rate and might incentivize employers to pay lower hourly rates with higher non-discretionary components.

Following the pattern in recent decisions, the Court specifically ruled that its decision is retroactive. Rejecting Loews’s argument that, given the uncertainty in the law prior to the ruling, employers could face millions of dollars in liability if applied retroactively, the Court stated that “it is not clear why we should favor the interest of employers in avoiding ‘millions’ in liability over the interest of employees in obtaining the ‘millions’ owed to them under the law.”

Accordingly, employers with California employees must now ensure that all non-discretionary payments for work performed by an employee are calculated into the payment of a meal or rest break premium.

Cal. Sup. Ct. Docket No. S259172, (July 15, 2021) (per curiam).

© 2021 Vedder PriceNational Law Review, Volume XI, Number 200
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Elizabeth N. Hall, Vedder Price Law Firm, Labor Employment Attorney
Shareholder

Elizabeth N. Hall is a shareholder  in the firm’s Labor and Employment Practice Area.  Her experience includes defending employers before state and federal courts and administrative agencies in all types of individual employee and class action labor and employment litigation including equal employment opportunity, wrongful and retaliatory discharge and wage and hour issues.  Ms. Hall has successfully argued procedural and employment discrimination issues in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and has particular expertise managing electronic discovery in complex...

312-609-7795
Shareholder

Sheryl (“Sherry”) Skibbe is a Shareholder at Vedder Price and a member of the Labor & Employment group in the firm’s Los Angeles office.

Ms. Skibbe is an experienced litigator with strong record of success representing global clients in the defense of complex class, collective, and representative actions and high-risk lawsuits. These cases include claims alleging misclassification of employees as exempt or as independent contractors; "off the clock" work including alleged unpaid training time, security checks, and regular rate violations;...

424-204-7799
Thomas H. Petrides, Vedder Price, Employment Policies Lawyer, Discrimination Matters Attorney,
Shareholder

Thomas H. Petrides is a Shareholder in the Los Angeles office of Vedder Price and a member of the firm’s Labor & Employment practice group. He has practiced exclusively in the area of labor and employment law on behalf of management for nearly 30  years.

Mr. Petrides represents management in all aspects of labor and employment law, including employment-related litigation and traditional labor law proceedings. Mr. Petrides regularly counsels a broad spectrum of clients on issues such as terminations, employment discrimination, sexual...

(424) 204 7756
Advertisement
Advertisement