June 18, 2019

June 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

No Payday for Plaintiffs

Last week, in Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC, the California Supreme Court addressed the question of whether, when an employer hires an independent payroll service provider (or “payroll company”) to take over all the payroll tasks that would otherwise be performed by an internal payroll department, the employee may bring a civil action against not only his or her employer but against the payroll company as well.  The Court held that an employee who believes he or she has not been paid the wages due under the applicable labor statutes and Wage Orders may not maintain causes of action for unpaid wages against a payroll service provider for: (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, or (3) negligent misrepresentation.  In reaching this holding, the Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the employee may maintain those three causes of action for unpaid wages against the payroll company even though a payroll company cannot properly be considered an employer of the hiring business’s employee.

First, the Supreme Court determined that an employee cannot maintain a breach of contract action against the payroll company under the third-party beneficiary doctrine. Under this doctrine, an individual or entity that is not a party to a contract may bring a breach of contract action against a party to the contract if the third party establishes that (1) it is likely to benefit from the contract, (2) a motivating purpose of the contracting parties is to provide a benefit to the third party, and (3) permitting the third party to bring its own breach of contract action against a contracting party is consistent with the objectives of the contract and the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties. The Supreme Court held that the third-party beneficiary doctrine does not apply to payroll service contracts in part because, instead of benefiting employees, an employer’s contract with a payroll company is intended to provide a benefit to the employer.

Second, the Supreme Court held that, based on a variety of public policy considerations, “it is neither necessary nor appropriate to impose upon a payroll company a tort duty of care with regard to the obligations owed to an employee under the applicable labor statutes and wage orders and consequently that the negligence and negligent misrepresentation causes of action lack merit.”

Overall, the California Supreme Court’s decision is a win for payroll companies as well as employers, who would most likely bear the pass-through costs of increased litigation against payroll companies.

© 2019 Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP


About this Author

Jeremy Mittman, Mitchell Silberberg Law Firm, Labor and Employment, Litigation Attorney, Los Angeles

Jeremy Mittman represents management in litigation of employment-related matters, including discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, as well as state and federal wage and hour claims. Jeremy regularly counsels clients on compliance with employment-related laws and on enforcing personnel policies and procedures. Jeremy has extensive experience representing employers in a variety of industries such as financial services, security services, and numerous entertainment and media companies. In addition, Jeremy works with clients on multi-country HR projects involving...

Samuel Richman Labor Employment Attorney

Legal Expertise

Samuel Richman has extensive experience in representing clients from public and private companies to high-net-worth individuals in all aspects of litigation for commercial, probate, business and entertainment matters. Samuel regularly advises clients on Title VII, ADA, ADEA, FLSA, FMLA and GINA compliance matters. In addition, he has successfully defended multiple clients against various discrimination cases.

Representative Matters

  • Drafted a successful motion for summary judgment on a federal class action FLSA lawsuit
  • Second-chaired the successful defense of a class action arbitration alleging unfair labor practices
  • Managed all discovery matters for numerous state and federal discrimination cases
  • Conducted and defended several depositions in employment discrimination matters
  • Drafted dispositive choice of law motion successfully arguing for California law to apply over Tennessee law
  • Drafted multiple employee handbooks

Other Career Experience

  • Associate, Dickinson Wright PLLC
310-312 - 3245