Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores
189 Cal. App. 4th 1472
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Labor Code authorizes the Commission to set standard conditions of labor, including seating where reasonable.
- Wage Order No. 7-2001, § 14, requires employers to provide suitable seating to employees when the work reasonably permits.
- Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, § 2699, allows civil penalties for violations of Labor Code provisions not specifically penalty-provided.
- Bright, a cashier at 990 Only Stores, alleged failure to provide seats violated § 1198 via Wage Order No. 7, § 14.
- Trial court sustained demurrer, dismissed Bright’s complaint with prejudice, and held no §1198 violation or §2699(f) penalties due to Wage Order No. 7-2001 having its own penalties.
- On appeal, Bright argued Wage Order No. 7-14 violations are §1198 violations and penalties under §2699(f) are available; the court reversed and held penalties applicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suitable seating under Wage Order 7-14 is a §1198 violation | Bright argues it is a §1198 standard condition violated by non-seating. | 990 Only Stores contends no §1198 violation since seating isn’t a prohibitory provision. | Yes; constitutes a §1198 violation. |
| Whether penalties under §2699(f) are available for such a violation | Bright asserts §2699(f) penalties apply to Wage Order 7-14 violations. | 990 Only Stores argues §2699(f) not applicable due to Wage Order 7-2001 penalties. | Yes; §2699(f) penalties are available. |
| Whether Wage Order 7-2001 subdivision 20 precludes §2699(f) penalties | Bright contends subdivision 20 provides exclusive penalties within Wage Order 7-2001. | 990 Only Stores contends subdivision 20 is exclusive remedial provision. | No; subdivision 20 is not exclusive; §2699(f) penalties remain available. |
| Proper interpretation of the statute's remedial scheme and harmonization with related wage orders | Bright advocates liberal construction to enforce employee protections. | 990 Only Stores urges narrow construction to align with wage order penalties. | §1198 and §2699(f) properly harmonized to enforce seating violation penalties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Industrial Welfare Comm. v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.3d 690 (Cal. 1980) (broad authority to fix standard conditions of labor and remedial, liberally construed)
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999) (remedial construction of wage/working condition regulations)
- Green v. State of California, 42 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 2007) (plain meaning controls; harmonize related provisions)
- County of Orange v. Bezaire, 117 Cal.App.4th 121 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2004) (mandatory nature of 'shall' language in statutes)
- Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (Cal. 1985) (demonstrates standards for reviewing demurrers and amendment rights)
- Ho v. Hsieh, 181 Cal.App.4th 337 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2010) (statutory interpretation and construction principles)
- Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 1298 (Cal. 2010) (harmonization of code sections and remedial statutes)
- Lloyd v. County of Los Angeles, 172 Cal.App.4th 320 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2009) (private attorney general actions versus public enforcement)