29 Cal.App.5th 778
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (belt sorters) were temporary employees provided by Barrett at two Los Angeles County sanitation district recycling facilities; class period April 15, 2011–September 30, 2013.
- Factual stipulation: conveyor belt was shut for 30-minute meal breaks but belt sorters were required to return 3–5 minutes before restart, so they were subject to employer control for those minutes; hourly base pay $8.25–$10.75.
- Claims included: prevailing wage (Lab. Code §§1720–1771), failure to provide duty‑free 30‑minute meal periods (Lab. Code §512; IWC Wage Order), unpaid minimum wages for time worked during truncated breaks (§§1194, 1197.1), waiting‑time penalties (§203), and PAGA civil penalties (§2699).
- Trial court struck prevailing wage claim and held section 226.7 (one hour premium pay) was plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy for shortened meal periods; awarded premium pay and reduced PAGA penalties, denied minimum‑wage recovery for the shortened time and waiting‑time penalties; awarded limited attorney fees.
- Court of Appeal reversed in part: held 1720(a)(2) covers work done for sanitation/utility districts (prevailing wage claim not properly stricken), and held employees may recover (1) the one‑hour meal premium under §226.7 and (2) wages for the actual minutes they were subject to employer control during the meal period (but not for time they were free).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ sorting work is "public work" under Lab. Code §1720 | Kaanaana: work done for a sanitation district is "work done for...utility...districts" and thus public work subject to prevailing wage | Barrett: §1720(a)(2) must be read as limited by §1720(a)(1)’s construction‑focused language; routine operations not public work | Court: §1720(a)(2) has independent effect; prevailing wage claim was improperly struck and must be remanded for adjudication |
| Remedy for meal periods shortened by 3–5 minutes: is §226.7 exclusive? | Kaanaana: they can recover §226.7 premium plus minimum wages for the full 30‑minute period (or liquidated damages) | Barrett: §226.7 is the sole remedy; intrusions are de minimis and only premium pay applies | Court: Two distinct remedies apply: §226.7 premium pay and wages for actual time worked during the shortened period; not entitled to pay for minutes when free |
| Whether truncated intrusions trigger waiting‑time penalties (§203) | Kaanaana: failure to pay owed wages/penalties at termination triggers waiting‑time penalties | Barrett: no minimum wages owed for truncated breaks; premiums are not wages for §203 | Court: Because minimum wages are owed for time actually worked during breaks, waiting‑time penalties may apply; remand to consider willfulness and penalties |
| PAGA civil penalties for minimum‑wage violations (§1197.1) | Kaanaana: penalties available for paying less than minimum for time worked during truncated breaks | Barrett: no minimum‑wage liability, so no §1197.1 penalties | Court: Trial court erred in denying §1197.1 penalties; remand to determine appropriate penalties (with statutory discretion to reduce) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (wage‑order interpretation; on‑duty/off‑duty meal period principles and distinction between premium pay and pay for hours worked)
- Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 53 Cal.4th 1244 (Cal. 2012) (section 1194 fee/claim scope; confirms §226.7 remedy addresses nonprovision of breaks but does not foreclose separate wage claims)
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (definition of "hours worked" and employer control test)
- Lusardi Construction Co. v. Aubry, 1 Cal.4th 976 (Cal. 1992) (purpose of prevailing wage law to protect employees on public works)
- Duncan v. State Building & Construction Trades Council, 162 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (limited deference to DIR administrative determinations; agency opinions not dispositive on pure statutory interpretation)
- Azusa Land Partners v. Department of Industrial Relations, 191 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (§1720(a)(2) can have independent effect apart from §1720(a)(1) and may cover some non‑construction infrastructure work)