Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc.

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One

February 27, 2012, Filed

D055586

Case Summary

Procedural Posture

After a bench trial in a meal-and-rest-period case, the Superior Court of San Diego County, California, entered judgment for plaintiff employee imposing civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq., against defendant employers, including $358,588 in unpaid wages, restitution, and prejudgment interest. Both parties appealed.

Overview

The court of appeal held that (1) the employee was not entitled to a continuance to bring a noticed motion for class certification that was not pursued until the eve of trial; (2) the employee was not entitled to recover private attorney general penalties under both Lab. Code, § 558, and under Wage Order No. 9-2001; (3) the trial court reasonably determined that the maximum penalty amount would have been unjust, given the employer's attempts to comply with the law and inability to pay following loss of a contract; (4) the collective bargaining exemption in the former version of Lab. Code, § 514, applied; (5) it was proper to award underpaid wages as a part of the civil penalty provided by Lab. Code, § 558, subd. (a), because the civil penalty consisted of both the penalty amount and any underpaid wages, with the underpaid wages going entirely to affected employees; (6) Lab. Code, § 558, subd. (a), provided a civil penalty for the claims for missed rest periods; and (7) the employee was bound by his judicial admission in the complaint that the employers provided meal periods after a certain date, even though the facts found by the trial court conflicted with that admission.

Outcome

The court reversed the portions of the judgment awarding recovery for missed meal periods and remanded with directions for a redetermination of that recovery. In all other respects, the court affirmed the judgment.

LexisNexis® Headnotes

 

 

Labor & Employment Law > Wage & Hour Laws > Remedies > General Overview

Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Wage & Hour Laws > Scope & Definitions > Overtime & Work Periods

HN1 Lab. Code, § 512, requires employers to provide a meal period of at least 30 minutes for a daily work period of more than five hours duration. Wage Order No. 9-2000, authorizes penalties for an employer's failure to provide required meal and rest periods.

 

Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Wage & Hour Laws > Administrative Proceedings > Enforcement Provisions

Labor & Employment Law > Wage & Hour Laws > Remedies > Private Suits

HN2  Enforcement Provisions

Lab Code, § 2699, subd. (a), of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) permits aggrieved employees to recover civil penalties that previously could be collected only by Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). In addition, to address violations for which no such penalty had been established, subd. (f) of the statute created a default penalty and a private right of action for aggrieved employees. Lab. Code, § 2699.3, sets forth certain administrative procedures that an aggrieved employee must follow before bringing a PAGA action.

 

Labor & Employment Law > Wage & Hour Laws > Remedies > General Overview

Labor & Employment Law > Wage & Hour Laws > Remedies > Private Suits

HN3 See Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (f).

 

Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > Abuse of Discretion

Access the full text caseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

203 Cal. App. 4th 1112 ; 138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 130 ; 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 223 ; 2012 WL 604037

LEANDER H. THURMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BAYSHORE TRANSIT MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Subsequent History: Time for Granting or Denying Review Extended Thurman (Leander H.) v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc., 2012 Cal. LEXIS 4992 (Cal., May 23, 2012)

Review denied by Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Mgmt., 2012 Cal. LEXIS 5624 (Cal., June 13, 2012)

Prior History:  [1] APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. GIC824139, Kevin A. Enright and Timothy B. Taylor, Judges.

Disposition: Reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded with directions.