Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors CA2/2
215 Cal. App. 4th 36
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- This wage-and-hour class action involves DTLA's piece-rate compensation system for automotive service technicians.
- Technicians were paid by flag hours tied to repair tasks, not hourly wages.
- DTLA supplemented pay to meet a “minimum wage floor” based on total hours, including waiting time.
- Technicians waited idle or performed non-repair tasks directed by DTLA, with no flag hours for that time.
- Trial court found DTLA violated minimum wage by not paying separately for waiting/non-repair time and awarded penalties.
- Court affirms, holding Armenta applies to require separate hourly pay for all hours worked and penalties are sustained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Wage Order No. 4 require separate hourly pay for waiting time? | Gonzalez/Pls: yes, for every hour worked including waiting. | DTLA: no, can average to minimum wage floor. | Yes; separate hourly pay required; Armenta applies. |
| Is Armenta applicable to piece-rate employees? | Armenta governs all hours worked, including waiting, regardless of pay basis. | Armenta should be limited to non-piece-rate contexts. | Applicable to piece-rate workers. |
| Is averaging wages over total hours worked permissible under Labor Code 221-223? | Averaging reduces wages below contract minimum; unlawful. | Averaging can satisfy minimums when total equals minimum wage. | Not permissible; violates statutory protections. |
| Do DLSE policies support DTLA’s averaging approach? | DLSE guidance supports paying for all hours at least minimum wage. | DLSE policies permit averaging in certain contexts. | Policies do not support averaging; compelled waiting-time pay. |
| Are penalties under Labor Code 203 justified? | Willful failure to pay owed wages warrants penalties. | Good faith or reasonable basis could negate willfulness. | Willfulness supported; penalties affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armenta v. Osmose, Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (rejects averaging; requires wages for all hours worked.)
- Cardenas v. McLane Foodservices, Inc., 796 F.Supp.2d 1246 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (applies Armenta to piece-rate workers; rejects averaging.)
- Carillo v. Schneider Logistics, Inc., 823 F.Supp.2d 1040 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (federal—rejects averaging for California wage laws.)
- Aleman v. Airtouch Cellular, 209 Cal.App.4th 556 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (interprets Wage Order No. 4; cautions against misreading 4(B).)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (liberal construction of wage orders; remedial employee protection.)
- Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cal.4th 557 (Cal. 1996) (statutory interpretation framework for wage orders.)