Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center
G048039A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Gerard, McElroy, Carl) are former hospital health-care workers who sometimes worked >12-hour shifts and signed waivers declining a second meal period.
- Hospital policy (based on IWC Wage Order No. 5, § 11(D)) allowed health-care employees working >8 hours to voluntarily waive one of two meal periods, even on shifts >12 hours.
- Labor Code § 512(a) generally requires a second 30-minute meal period for work >10 hours, but permits waiving the second meal period only if total hours are no more than 12.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the hospital and denied class certification; plaintiffs appealed.
- This court previously held the IWC waiver rule invalid to the extent it authorized waivers on shifts >12 hours (Gerard I); the California Supreme Court granted review and transferred for reconsideration after enactment of SB 327.
- On reconsideration, the court concluded the IWC waiver (§ 11(D)) was valid as adopted before SB 88 limited IWC authority, and SB 327 clarified and confirmed that validity, so summary judgment and denial of class certification were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of IWC Wage Order §11(D) waiver for health-care workers on shifts >12 hours | §512(a) bars waiving a second meal period when total hours exceed 12; §11(D) conflicts and is invalid | §11(D) was adopted on June 30, 2000 under the earlier §516(a) (AB 60) that authorized such orders notwithstanding §512; thus §11(D) is valid | §11(D) valid: adopted before SB 88's amendment to §516(a), so IWC acted within its authority when adopting the waiver rule |
| Effect of SB 327 enacted after Gerard I | SB 327 changed the law and cannot be applied retroactively to validate prior waivers | SB 327 clarifies existing law and confirms that health-care meal-waiver provisions were valid and enforceable since Oct. 1, 2000 | SB 327 is a clarification of prior law and confirms §11(D) was valid and enforceable; applies to the waivers at issue |
| Procedural consequences: summary judgment and denial of class certification | Plaintiffs argued summary judgment and class denial were erroneous because waivers were invalid and evidence was improperly excluded | Hospital contended waivers were valid and evidence objections were nonprejudicial | Court affirmed summary judgment and denial of class certification; authentication objection was moot given validity of waivers |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerard v. Orange Coast Mem. Med. Ctr., 234 Cal.App.4th 285 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (prior appellate decision addressing §11(D) validity)
- Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (interpreting meal period law and discussing IWC authority)
- Western Sec. Bank v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 232 (Cal. 1997) (principles on legislative clarifications and retrospective application)
- Ross v. Bd. of Retirement of Alameda Cty. Emps.' Ret. Assn., 92 Cal.App.2d 188 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949) (distinction between adoption and effective dates of administrative rules)