Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., 216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 889

Plaintiffs Christopher Mendoza and Meagan Gordon are former Nordstrom employees who on several occasions worked more than six consecutive days after being asked to fill in for others; some shifts in those runs were six hours or less and some were longer.
Mendoza sued Nordstrom (with Gordon intervening) asserting violations of Labor Code §§ 551–552 (day-of-rest statutes) via a PAGA representative action; Nordstrom removed to federal court and the district court held a bench trial.
The district court ruled the statutes operate on a rolling seven-day basis, that § 556’s six-hour-per-day exemption applied if the employee had at least one day of six hours or less during the period, and that Nordstrom did not “cause” plaintiffs to work seventh days because it did not coerce them; plaintiffs appealed.
The Ninth Circuit certified unsettled California-law questions to the California Supreme Court (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548), asking (1) whether the day-of-rest is measured by workweek or rolling seven days, (2) how § 556’s six-hour-per-day exception operates, and (3) what “cause” means in § 552.
The California Supreme Court received and harmonized the Labor Code, IWC wage orders, statutory definitions (§ 500), administrative interpretations, and the remedial purpose of wage-hour laws in answering the certified questions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Is the guaranteed day of rest measured by the workweek or a rolling seven-day period?	Day of rest applies on a rolling basis: any seven consecutive days trigger entitlement.	Applies by workweek: employer’s established recurring week governs entitlement.	Workweek basis: the guarantee is one day of rest per established workweek (not a rolling seven-day rule).
2) Does § 556’s “six hours in any one day” exemption apply if at least one day is ≤6 hours, or only if every day is ≤6 hours?	Exemption applies if the employee has at least one day of ≤6 hours in the week.	Exempts employees only if each day in the week is ≤6 hours or alternatively (per Nordstrom) that one short day suffices.	Exemption requires that every daily shift that week be six hours or less; § 556 is read to give effect to both the daily and weekly limits.
3) What does it mean to “cause” an employee to work more than six days in seven under § 552?	Any allowance, suffering, permitting, or failure to prevent seventh-day work constitutes cause.	“Cause” should mean require, force, or coerce—not mere allowance or passive acquiescence.	“Cause” means inducing or motivating an employee to forgo a rest day; employer must apprise employees of the right and remain neutral—cannot induce, encourage, conceal, or pressure—but is not strictly liable for an employee’s independent choice to work.

Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (discussing IWC and wage orders and their role in wage‑hour law)
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (wage orders have statutory dignity and remedial provisions get liberal construction)
Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 63 Cal.4th 1 (interpretation of wage orders and DLSE guidance on overtime and scheduling)
Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (PAGA representative actions and procedure)
Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (PAGA standing and representative enforcement)
Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.3d 690 (remedial construction of wage‑hour laws and IWC authority)