220 Cal. App. 4th 38
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Employee Paul Thomas filed a Labor Code discrimination/retaliation complaint (Lab. Code, § 98.7) on May 15, 2008 alleging he was terminated for asserting wage-rights; the Labor Commissioner issued a determination finding reasonable cause on July 9, 2011—well beyond the statute’s 60‑day notice requirement.
- The Labor Commissioner ordered cease-and-desist, reinstatement (or equivalent), and back pay with interest; she later sent ACS a demand for roughly $86,094.56 plus interest and gave 10 days to comply.
- ACS sought a writ of mandate to compel retraction of the determination, alleging statutory deadline violation, prejudice from lost witnesses (one key witness died), lack of hearing, and that Thomas had resigned rather than been fired.
- While the writ petition was pending, the Labor Commissioner filed a civil action in Sacramento Superior Court to enforce the determination; ACS answered asserting numerous defenses including statute of limitations, due process, and the Commissioner’s procedural failures.
- The Labor Commissioner demurred to the writ petition arguing ACS has an adequate legal remedy in the enforcement action and that the 60‑day notice in § 98.7 is directory; the trial court sustained the demurrer (dismissal) and ACS appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACS lacked an adequate remedy at law and thus could seek extraordinary writ relief to challenge the late § 98.7 determination | The delayed determination violated the 60‑day statutory deadline, caused prejudice (lost witnesses), and no ordinary remedy exists because the enforcement action does not permit trial de novo | The enforcement action in superior court is an ordinary civil action in which ACS can raise procedural and substantive defenses (including delay and due process), so mandamus is not necessary | The Court held ACS has an adequate remedy in the Labor Commissioner’s enforcement action; mandamus was not available, so dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the 60‑day notice requirement in § 98.7 is mandatory such that a late determination is voidable and entitles ACS to writ relief | The statute’s “not later than 60 days” language is mandatory and ACS is entitled to relief due to prejudice from the delay | The statutory scheme requires the Commissioner to sue to enforce an order; a civil action provides full adjudication of defenses so the 60‑day deadline’s violation can be raised in that action; no need to treat it as jurisdictionally fatal | Court rejected ACS’s mandatory‑deadline argument for purposes of writ relief; enforcement action provides adequate forum for defenses |
| Whether due process was denied by the Commissioner issuing an order without a hearing and without prompt enforcement procedural protections | ACS argued deprivation of property (money) without hearing violates due process | The Commissioner conceded no summary deprivation should occur; but the enforcement suit affords full due process and opportunity to be heard | Court held due process is satisfied because ACS can litigate all defenses in the enforcement action |
| Whether the enforcement action provides de novo review or otherwise permits full adjudication of defenses | ACS argued § 98.7’s phrase “for cause shown” limits court review and does not provide a trial de novo | The Commissioner and the court treated the enforcement suit as an ordinary civil action—i.e., de novo adjudication of claims and defenses | Court concluded enforcement action is de novo in effect and allows all defenses, so ACS’s concern is unfounded |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuadra v. Millan, 17 Cal.4th 855 (discussion of Berman wage‑claim procedures and appeals de novo)
- County of San Diego v. State, 164 Cal.App.4th 580 (writ relief standards; no mandamus when adequate legal remedy exists)
- Horn v. County of Ventura, 24 Cal.3d 605 (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation of property)
- Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 28 Cal.4th 828 (statutes should be construed to avoid constitutional doubts)
- Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112 (standard for leave to amend after demurrer sustained)
- Salawy v. Ocean Towers Housing Corp., 121 Cal.App.4th 664 (definition and scope of an ‘action’ as encompassing full judicial proceedings)