Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court
191 Cal. App. 4th 210
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Real parties sued Home Depot under PAGA for alleged seating violations under Lab. Code §1198 and IWC wage order No. 7-2001 in California stores.
- Complaint seeks civil penalties under §2699, subdivision (f), plus attorney fees and costs.
- Home Depot demurred, arguing §2699(f) provides no remedy for seating violations.
- Wage order 7-2001 §14 requires suitable seating where the work reasonably permits, with proximity and use allowed when not interfering with duties.
- California appellate authority Bright held that §2699(f) encompasses violations of §1198 based on seating requirements; issue before court was interpretation of 'conditions of labor prohibited by the order.'
- Court aligns with Bright and holds seating violations under wage order No. 7-2001 fall under the default §2699(f) remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2699(f) default remedy covers seating violations under wage order 7-2001 | Bright supports coverage of seating violations | Penalty not applicable due to explicit wage order penalties | Yes; §2699(f) applies to seating violations |
| Whether seating violations contravene §1198 (unlawful conditions of labor) | Seating requirements are unlawful when not provided | Affirmative language cannot create prohibition | Seating violations contravene §1198 |
| Whether §20(A) penalties in wage order preclude use of §2699(f) default remedy | Penalties are nonexclusive; §2699(f) supplements | §20(A) provides comprehensive penalties for wage order violations | Penalties are nonexclusive; §2699(f) supplements §20(A) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, 189 Cal.App.4th 1472 (2010) (default remedy under §2699(f) covers wage-order seating violations)
- Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc., 133 Cal.App.4th 949 (2005) (interpreting wage order penalties in context of remedies)
- Ex parte Daniels, 183 Cal. 636 (1920) (standards of conduct can support criminal penalties when determinate)
- Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.3d 690 (1980) (wage orders regulate minimum labor standards and conditions)
- Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court, 134 Cal.App.4th 365 (2005) (distribution of civil penalties under §2699)
- Dunlap v. Superior Court, 142 Cal.App.4th 330 (2006) (PAGA permits aggrieved employees to recover civil penalties)
- Johnson v. Arvin-Edison Water Storage Dist., 174 Cal.App.4th 729 (2009) (statutory construction guiding interpretation of wage-related statutes)
- Solis v. Regis Corp., 612 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (NJD Cal. 2007) (default remedy supplements non-specific penalties)