Gunawan v. Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17873
C.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Liza Gunawan applied to and used KForce, a temporary staffing agency, which arranged an interview with its client Title Resource Group (TRG); she signed KForce new-hire paperwork on June 8, 2012 and began an assignment June 11, 2012.
- Gunawan attended a TRG interview before formal employment began; she was later discharged by KForce on October 10, 2012 and received final pay via a debit/pay card shortly thereafter.
- Gunawan sued KForce and Workway asserting wage-and-hour claims (minimum wage for interview time, inaccurate wage statements, various Labor Code violations, waiting time penalties, and a UCL claim); KForce removed under CAFA.
- The court found Workway improperly joined (citizen of California), severed and remanded claims against Workway to state court and dismissed Workway’s summary judgment motion as moot.
- On KForce’s summary judgment motion, the court granted summary judgment on Gunawan’s claims for unpaid minimum wages (for interview time), wage-statement violations, several Labor Code claims lacking private causes of action, and the UCL claim; it denied summary judgment only on the waiting-time penalties claim and remanded that individual claim to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time spent attending a pre-employment interview arranged by KForce is compensable minimum-wage work | Gunawan: interview time conferred benefit on KForce and was controlled by KForce, so it is compensable | KForce: Gunawan was not yet an employee and was not under KForce’s control during the interview, so time is not compensable | Not compensable; summary judgment for KForce on minimum-wage claim |
| Whether KForce violated Labor Code §226 by providing inaccurate wage statements | Gunawan: wage statements omitted interview pay and other required particulars | KForce: wage statements complied with §226(a) as applied to the relevant time; interview pay not owed; newer §226(a)(9) (assignment breakdown) not effective until after her employment | Summary judgment for KForce; §226 claim derivative of failed minimum-wage claim and no evidence of compensable injury |
| Whether claims under Labor Code §§212, 213, 221, 223 are privately enforceable (or actionable outside PAGA) | Gunawan: statutory protections were violated and provide relief | KForce: those sections do not create express private rights; enforcement is by Labor Commissioner or via PAGA if properly pled | No private right alleged; summary judgment for KForce on these claims |
| Whether KForce owes waiting-time penalties under §203 for failure to timely pay final wages at discharge | Gunawan: final wages were not timely paid after discharge (including alleged interview wages) | KForce: disputes timing/amount; argues interview wages not owed and contends pay was provided via pay card | Genuine dispute exists whether final wages were timely paid; summary judgment denied on waiting-time claim; claim remanded to state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (definition of employer and joint-employer analysis under California law)
- Futrell v. Payday California, Inc., 190 Cal.App.4th 1419 (control inquiry in wage-and-hour employer analysis)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (UCL standing requires economic injury)