McLean v. State of California
206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 545
Cal.2016Background
- McLean, a retired deputy attorney general, sued the State of California under Labor Code §203 for penalties based on alleged delay in final wages after retirement.
- She named the State of California and the State Controller’s Office as defendants, alleging the payroll system caused delayed payments to retirees who resigned or retired during 2010–2011.
- The trial court sustained a demurrer, holding §203applies only to those who quit, not retirees, and did not reach the employer-identity issue.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding §202 and §203 apply to retirees and that the State was McLean’s employer for prompt payment purposes.
- This Court granted review and affirmed, concluding that retirees fall within the general quit category and that naming the State as defendant can be proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do §§202 and 203 apply to retirement? | McLean: retirement constitutes quitting. | State: retirement is not a quit under §§202, 203. | Yes; retirees fall within quit for §§202, 203. |
| Who is the proper defendant in a §203 claim against a state employee? | McLean: the State is the employer; suit against State is proper. | State: the employer is the specific department/agency (DoJ), not the State as a whole. | The State may be a proper defendant; the case may proceed against the State notwithstanding agency involvement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (wage-hour provisions should be liberally construed to protect workers)
- Smith v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.4th 77 (Cal. 2006) (prompt payment of wages policy and public welfare)
- Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group, 29 Cal.4th 345 (Cal. 2002) (wages defined and public policy for prompt payment)
- Colombo v. State of California, 3 Cal.App.4th 594 (Cal. App. 1991) (state employer concepts in wage claims)
- Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (U.S. 2008) (contextual discussion of retirement and related payments)
- Kerr’s Catering Service v. Department of Industrial Relations, 57 Cal.2d 319 (Cal. 1962) (public policy favoring prompt payment of wages)
- Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA, 495 U.S. 641 (U.S. 1990) (agency interpretation and caution in statutory construction)