Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center
215 Cal. Rptr. 3d 778
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Three former Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center employees (Gerard, McElroy, Carl) sued alleging the hospital enforced waivers that removed a second 30‑minute meal period on shifts exceeding 12 hours, violating Labor Code §512(a) and IWC wage orders.
- Hospital policy allowed health‑care employees working >10 hours to voluntarily waive one of two meal periods, including on shifts over 12 hours; plaintiffs sometimes worked >12 hours and signed such waivers.
- Plaintiffs sought unpaid wages, penalties, injunctive relief, class claims (McElroy, Carl) and a PAGA claim (Gerard). Hospital defended that valid meal‑period waivers defeated the claim and moved for summary judgment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the hospital and denied class certification; plaintiffs appealed. This is the reconsideration after the California Supreme Court vacated the court’s earlier appellate decision.
- Central statutory framework: Labor Code §512(a) permits a second meal waiver only if total hours ≤12; IWC Wage Order No. 5 §11(D) (adopted June 30, 2000) allowed health‑care employees to waive one meal period for shifts >8 hours; §516 grants IWC authority (as amended at different times).
- Senate Bill 327 (2015) added §516(b) declaring the IWC health‑care meal waiver provisions were valid and enforceable as of October 1, 2000, and stating the bill clarified existing law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of IWC Wage Order No. 5 §11(D) to permit waiver of second meal on shifts >12 hrs | Wage Order §11(D) conflicts with §512(a); waivers for >12 hr shifts are invalid | Wage Order §11(D) was validly adopted and authorizes the waiver; hospital relied on it | §11(D) valid; Wage Order adopted June 30, 2000 was authorized by §516 as in effect then, so no conflict |
| Whether the IWC exceeded its authority under §516 when adopting §11(D) | IWC exceeded authority because §512(a) controls and limits waivers to ≤12 hrs | IWC acted within authority under §516 existing at adoption; wage order adoption date controls | IWC did not exceed authority; adoption occurred under an earlier §516 that allowed such orders |
| Effect of Senate Bill 327 (2015) on retroactivity/applicability | SB 327 changed law, cannot be applied retroactively to validate past waivers | SB 327 clarified existing law and is a legislative declaration of meaning, applying to the waivers at issue | SB 327 is a clarification; supports validity of waivers and applies to prior waivers |
| Impact on summary judgment and class certification orders | Plaintiffs argued errors in evidentiary rulings and that class claims should proceed | Hospital argued waivers defeat claims and summary judgment/class denial proper | Court affirmed summary judgment and denial/striking of class allegations; evidentiary objection was moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerard v. Orange Coast Mem. Med. Ctr., 234 Cal.App.4th 285 (2015) (prior appellate decision prompting legislative response)
- Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012) (meal period law and interpretation of IWC authority)
- Western Sec. Bank v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 232 (1997) (legislative clarifications construed as declarations of prior meaning)
- Ross v. Board of Retirement, 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) (consideration of IWC wage orders adopted post‑amendment)