United Parcel Services, Inc. v. Superior Court
196 Cal. App. 4th 57
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- UPS faced 32 coordinated actions alleging failure to provide meal/rest periods under Lab. Code §226.7.
- §226.7(b) provides one additional hour of pay for each workday the meal or rest period is not provided.
- Trial court held that §226.7 allows up to two premium payments per workday; UPS urged a single premium.
- Federal district court in Mario held employees may recover up to two hours per workday (one for meal, one for rest).
- Wage orders of the IWC treat meal and rest periods separately, each with its own one-hour premium.
- Legislative history shows AB 2509 aligned with IWC premium-pay provisions; legislature aware of IWC orders when enacting §226.7.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §226.7(b) permits two premium payments per day. | Plaintiffs (employees) argue two premiums, one for each violation. | UPS argues only one premium per workday regardless of violations. | Two premiums per day permitted. |
| Whether IWC wage orders support separate remedies for meal and rest violations. | IWC orders provide separate meals and rest remedies. | Structure does not mandate two premiums. | Wage orders support up to two premiums per day. |
| Whether legislative history favors two premiums per day. | Legislative history shows alignment with IWC orders. | History inconclusive on number of premiums. | Legislation and history support two premiums per day. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007) (remedial, protective construction of §226.7; premium not a penalty)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (administrative practice evidence of legislative intent; longstanding practice tells intent)
- In re Prentiss C., 14 Cal.App.4th 1484 (Cal.App. 1993) (statute construed to promote underlying policy of protections for employees)