Willner v. Manpower Inc.
35 F. Supp. 3d 1116
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Willner, Manpower hourly employee paid weekly by mail, sues for California Labor Code violations in a putative class action.
- Willner asserts five claims: (1) timely payment under 201.3(b)(1); (2) inaccurate wage statements under 226; (3) unlawful UCL based on 226 and 201.3(b)(1); (4) PAGA penalties for 226 and 201.3(b)(1); (5) final wages/timing under 201 and 203 at separation.
- Willner seeks two classes: (a) claims tied to 201.3(b)(1), 226, and PAGA for those harms; (b) broader 226-related class regardless of mail/electronic delivery.
- Manpower moves for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment on four of Willner’s five claims; Willner moves for leave to amend to expand 226 class scope; Willner also seeks summary judgment on PAGA penalties for 226.
- Motions are resolved with leave to amend granted and mixed outcomes on the four remaining claims; the operative complaint becomes the Fifth Amended Complaint.
- The court’s jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 203(a) penalties apply to 201.3(b)(1) violations. | Willner: penalties may apply since 203(a) covers all wages due. | Manpower: 203(a) penalties limited to 201.3(b)(4)/(b)(5) final wages. | No; 203(a) penalties do not apply to 201.3(b)(1) violations. |
| Whether wage statements violated 226(a) (dates and address) actionable for damages. | Willner shows violations of 226(a)(6) and (a)(8) via start dates and employer address. | Manpower: statements substantially comply; no knowing/intentional violation shown. | Questions of fact exist on 226(a) violations and damages under 226(e); denial of judgment. |
| Whether the “knowing and intentional” element for 226(e) is satisfied. | Willner presents Matson deposition showing awareness of defects; seeks inference of intent. | No clear standard; argue insufficient proof of knowing/intent. | Genuine issue of material fact exists on knowing and intentional standard. |
| Whether Willner can pursue PAGA penalties for 226(a) and 201.3(b)(1) without Rule 23 class certification. | PAGA claims may proceed without Rule 23 certification; notice and injury not required for 226(a) penalties. | May require notice and class certification; contents of injury disputed. | PAGA penalties for 226(a) may proceed; notice adequate; Rule 23 not required for representative PAGA claims; injury not required for 226(a) penalties. |
| Whether leave to amend to expand 226 class is warranted. | amendment clarifies scope to include all temporary employees; supported by new evidence. | Bad faith, futility, undue delay; seeks to broaden scope beyond mail-delivered statements. | Leave to amend granted; Fifth Amended Complaint to be operative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Porch v. Masterfoods, USA, Inc., 685 F.Supp.2d 1058 (C.D.Cal.2008) (discusses waiting time penalties; restrictions on 203(a))
- Vikco Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Ohio Indem. Co., 70 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal.App.4th 1999) (private right of action requires clear, unmistakable terms in statute)
- McKenzie v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 765 F.Supp.2d 1222 (C.D.Cal.2011) (section 226(e) damages require knowing/intentional violation; injuries not needed for PAGA penalties)
- Elliot v. Spherion Pac. Work, LLC, 572 F.Supp.2d 1169 (C.D.Cal.2008) (address and 226(a) requirements; statutory interpretation)
- Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., 656 F.Supp.2d 1128 (N.D.Cal.2009) (PAGA notice and representative actions; no Rule 23 gatekeeping)