Guerrero v. Superior Court
213 Cal. App. 4th 912
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Guerrero provided IHSS services to Buenrostro in Sonoma County from Nov 4, 2008 to Jan 29, 2009 and was not paid.
- Guerrero claimed County and Public Authority were joint employers with Buenrostro for federal and state wage-and-hour claims.
- The trial court sustained a demurrer to Guerrero's FLSA and California wage claims; Guerrero sought extraordinary relief.
- IHSS program framework: County administers the program; Public Authority may act as employer for collective bargaining; recipients retain hiring/supervision rights; the state handles payroll and certain employer obligations.
- Real parties argue Bonnette and subsequent amendments superseded joint-employer analysis; Guerrero contends substantial control by County/Public Authority over hours, wages, records, and delivery methods created an employment relationship.
- Court concludes the demurrer to Guerrero’s wage-and-hour claims was improper and remands for further fact-finding on exemptions and joint-employer status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County and Public Authority are Guerrero's employers under the FLSA | Guerrero asserts they are joint employers | Real parties contend they are not employers under FLSA | Yes, joint employers |
| Whether the IHSS duties fall within the FLSA companionship/domestic service exemption | Duty mix may exceed 20% general household work, not exempt | Work may be exempt as companionship/personal attendant | Questions of fact; demurrer improper on this basis |
| Whether IWC Wage Order 15-2001 applies to public agencies and whether public agencies are exempt | Order applies to household occupations; public agencies not categorically exempt | Public agencies exempt from wage orders | Public agencies are not categorically exempt; order applies; mixed analysis appropriate |
| Whether Guerrero’s California wage claims can proceed given Labor Code definitions of employer | State wage orders define employer with broad scope; joint employment possible | State and counties insulated by statutory structure | Remand to determine employer status under Labor Code and related orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonnette v. California Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (establishes four-factor framework for ‘economic reality’ joint employment under FLSA)
- Martinez v. Yosemite Water Co., 49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010) (IWC wage orders define employment; state law may extend protections beyond FLSA)
- Basden v. Wagner, 181 Cal.App.4th 929 (Cal.App. 2010) (IHSS providers’ status as employees varies by purpose; supports agency/recipient joint control analysis)
- Moreau v. Air France, 356 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2003) (applies Bonnette factors to assess joint employment; differentiates context of FMLA)
- In-Home Supportive Services v. WCAB, 152 Cal.App.3d 720 (Cal.App.3d 1984) (IHSS provider as dual employee of state and recipient for workers’ compensation; supports agency-of-state analysis)
- SEIU v. County of Los Angeles, 225 Cal.App.3d 761 (Cal.App.1990) (MMBA context; discussed employer status in IHSS delivery)
- Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation, 39 Cal.4th 1164 (Cal. 2006) (public agencies’ treatment under wage-law framework; exceptions to sovereign immunity)
- Sheppard v. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program, 191 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal.App. 2010) (statutory interpretation of wage orders applying to public entities)
- Campbell v. Regents of University of California, 35 Cal.4th 311 (Cal. 2005) (public agencies and wage-law applicability principles)