Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center
G048039B
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Gerard, McElroy, Carl) are former hospital health‑care employees who sometimes worked >12‑hour shifts and signed waivers declining a second 30‑minute meal period.
- California Labor Code §512(a) generally requires a second meal period for work >10 hours and permits waiver only if total hours are no more than 12.
- IWC Wage Order No. 5, §11(D) (adopted June 30, 2000) allowed health‑care employees working >8 hours to voluntarily waive one of two meal periods, including on shifts >12 hours.
- Legislature amended Labor Code §516 twice: SB 88 (Sept. 19, 2000) limited IWC authority vis‑à‑vis §512; SB 327 (2015) declared IWC §11(D) valid and clarifying existing law, effective immediately.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for hospital and denied class certification; this court previously held §11(D) partially invalid (Gerard I) but reconsidered after the Supreme Court transfer and SB 327 enactment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of IWC Wage Order §11(D) to permit waivers of second meal period on shifts >12 hrs | §11(D) conflicts with §512(a) and is invalid to the extent it allows waivers for >12‑hour shifts | §11(D) was validly adopted under the pre‑SB 88 §516 and authorizes waivers; hospital followed valid waivers | §11(D) valid: adopted before SB 88 under broader §516 authority; waivers enforceable |
| Whether IWC exceeded authority in adopting §11(D) | IWC exceeded authority by creating an exception inconsistent with §512(a) | IWC had authority when it adopted §11(D) (AB 60 era) and did not exceed its power | IWC did not exceed authority; adoption lawful under AB 60 version of §516 |
| Effect of SB 327 (2015) on prior waivers and pending case | SB 327 improperly changes law retroactively; plaintiffs’ waivers remain invalid | SB 327 clarifies existing law and validates second‑meal waivers back to Oct. 1, 2000 | SB 327 is a clarification of existing law and validates health‑care waivers, applying here |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment and denial of class certification | Disputed facts (timecards, wage statements) and common claims defeat summary judgment and class denial | Waivers were valid; no triable meal‑period claim; class certification fails due to lack of viable claim | Summary judgment and class‑cert denial affirmed; authentication objections moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012) (meal‑period standards and employer obligations clarified)
- Western Security Bank v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 232 (1997) (statutory clarification vs. change; legislative declaration considered)
- Ross v. Board of Retirement of Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Assn., 92 Cal.App.2d 188 (1949) (distinction between adoption and effective dates of administrative orders)
- Bearden v. U.S. Borax, Inc., 138 Cal.App.4th 429 (2006) (analysis of wage orders adopted after statutory amendment)
- Lazarin v. Superior Court, 188 Cal.App.4th 1560 (2010) (review of IWC wage orders enacted under amended authority)