That changed on January 1, 2026, when Senate Bill 261 took effect. Under this new law, employers who fail to satisfy a final wage judgment within 180 days now face civil penalties of up to three times the outstanding amount — plus mandatory attorneys’ fees for the worker pursuing collection. SB 261 also establishes successor liability, meaning employers cannot dodge payment by selling their business or restructuring assets.

The Nourmand Law Firm, APC represents California employees in wage and hour claims involving stolen overtime, unpaid minimum wages, missed meal and rest breaks, and other violations that lead to enforceable judgments. If your employer owes you money under a wage judgment and has failed to pay, call 800-700-WAGE for a free consultation about your enforcement options under SB 261.

What Does SB 261 Do for Workers Who Are Owed Unpaid Wages?

SB 261 creates a triple-penalty structure designed to force employers to pay wage judgments promptly. Once a final judgment for unpaid wages becomes non-appealable, the employer has 180 days to satisfy the full amount. If the employer fails to do so, a court must impose a civil penalty of up to three times the outstanding judgment — including both the principal award and any accumulated interest.

The law shifts the burden to the employer. To reduce the penalty below the full triple amount, the employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that “good cause” exists for the delay. Cash flow problems, competing business expenses, and ordinary mismanagement do not qualify. Only extraordinary circumstances beyond the employer’s control — such as a catastrophic event that froze assets — would meet that standard.

Half of the penalty amount goes directly to the affected worker. The other half is payable to the State of California.

How Does the 180-Day Deadline Work Under California’s Wage Judgment Penalty Law?

The 180-day clock starts running after the appeal period on a final wage judgment has lapsed. If the employer does not appeal the Labor Commissioner’s order, decision, or award (ODA) within the statutory window, that order becomes final and the clock begins. If the employer does appeal, the judgment becomes final once the court resolves the appeal — at which point the employer again has 180 days to pay.

For workers in industries where wage theft is widespread — restaurants, construction, warehousing, agriculture, trucking, and healthcare — this deadline is critical. Employers in these sectors have historically treated wage judgments as low-priority debts, gambling that workers would give up on collection. SB 261 removes that gamble by attaching severe financial consequences to delay.

Workers across the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, and throughout Los Angeles County should pay close attention to SB 261, because employers in Bakersfield, Fontana, Stockton, and similar communities have some of the highest rates of wage theft violations in the state.

What Is Successor Liability, and Why Does It Matter for Wage Theft Claims?

Successor liability under SB 261 means that any entity acquiring the business of an employer with an outstanding wage judgment inherits that liability — including the triple-penalty exposure. The successor is jointly and severally liable for all penalties assessed against the original employer.

Before SB 261, some employers evaded wage judgments by selling their assets to a related entity, shutting down operations, or restructuring under a new corporate name. The judgment remained on paper, but the worker had no viable target for collection. SB 261 closes that loophole.

This provision is especially significant in industries where business ownership changes hands frequently — including restaurants, janitorial services, staffing agencies, and warehouse operations. If a company that owed you wages was sold or merged after your judgment was issued, the acquiring entity may now be responsible for paying the full amount plus penalties.

Can an Employer Avoid Triple Penalties by Setting Up a Payment Plan?

Yes — but only under strict conditions. SB 261 includes an “accord” provision under Labor Code § 238 that allows an employer to avoid the triple penalty by entering into a formal, written installment payment agreement with the worker before the 180-day deadline expires.

The employer must reach this agreement and begin complying with the payment schedule before the deadline passes. If the employer defaults on the payment plan after it is in place, the accord protections fall away and the full penalty exposure returns.

Workers should approach any employer-proposed payment plan with caution. An accord under this law must be a genuine, documented agreement — not a verbal promise or an informal arrangement. Having an attorney review the terms before signing can prevent an employer from using a sham payment plan to buy time while continuing to avoid full payment.

What Role Do Attorneys’ Fees Play in SB 261 Enforcement?

One of the most powerful features of SB 261 is its mandatory attorneys’ fees provision. In any enforcement action brought by a worker, the Labor Commissioner, or a public prosecutor to collect on a final wage judgment, the court must award the prevailing party all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Under the previous framework, attorneys’ fees in wage judgment collection were discretionary. Employers could calculate that fighting collection would cost a worker more in legal fees than the judgment was worth — particularly for lower-dollar claims typical in minimum wage violations or off-the-clock work cases. SB 261 eliminates that calculation. Mandatory fee-shifting means the employer bears the cost of enforcement when the worker prevails.

This change is particularly meaningful for workers in low-wage industries across California — from agricultural employees in Fresno and Visalia to food service workers in Sacramento and San Diego — who previously could not afford to pursue collection of smaller judgments.

What Steps Should California Workers Take to Enforce a Wage Judgment After SB 261?

If you already hold a final wage judgment against a current or former employer, confirm whether the appeal period has lapsed. Once it has, the 180-day window under SB 261 begins. Document every communication with the employer about payment, and track the deadline carefully.

If the employer proposes a payment plan, consult with an employment attorney before agreeing to any terms. Make sure the accord is formalized in writing and complies with Labor Code § 238, because an improperly structured agreement may not protect the employer from triple penalties — which means your leverage in negotiation increases.

If you have not yet filed a wage claim but believe your employer has stolen your wages through unpaid overtime, illegal deductions, missed breaks, or other violations, SB 261 gives you an additional reason to act. The stronger enforcement tools mean that a judgment in your favor now carries real financial teeth — and employers know it.

Protect Your Right to Every Dollar You Earned

The Nourmand Law Firm, APC has represented California employees for more than 20 years, securing millions of dollars in class action settlements and individual cases for workers in logistics, agriculture, healthcare, food service, and manufacturing. With SB 261 now in effect, employers face serious consequences for ignoring wage judgments — and workers have stronger tools than ever to collect what they are owed. Call 800-700-WAGE or contact us online for a free, confidential consultation. No recovery, no fee. Se Habla Español.

The decision turned on whether a former employee could proceed with a representative PAGA claim more than a year after leaving the job. Despite clear allegations of unpaid overtime and labor law violations, the court dismissed the case. If you have concerns about wage theft or labor code abuse, a California employment law firm that only represents employees can help you take the right steps immediately.

How PAGA Protects You and Your Coworkers

PAGA provides workers with a means to pursue civil penalties against employers who violate labor laws. Instead of relying solely on state enforcement agencies, you can file on behalf of yourself and your coworkers. These claims often involve unpaid wages, denied breaks, or misclassification issues.

To qualify, you must notify the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency and file your complaint within one year of the alleged violation. Courts require strict compliance with this deadline, even in cases involving multiple victims.

You deserve a process that gives your claim the chance to succeed. Acting quickly gives your legal team the time to investigate, gather evidence, and meet every procedural requirement.

Why the Court Dismissed This Recent PAGA Case

In a ruling issued by the California Court of Appeal in May 2025, a worker who previously served as an insurance adjuster attempted to file a PAGA claim more than a year after his employment ended. He had worked long hours for years without receiving overtime. However, he waited over 12 months to notify the state of his intent to pursue civil penalties.

The court found that the delay disqualified him from acting as a PAGA representative. He lacked a timely personal claim, which meant he could not pursue penalties on behalf of others. The court also rejected arguments that claims from other workers could substitute for his own or that the timeline could be extended under the continuous accrual rule.

This outcome highlights the strict enforcement of statutory deadlines in California labor law. You must have your timely claim to act under PAGA; waiting too long can close the door, no matter how strong the evidence of violations may be.

Understanding the One-Year Limit on PAGA Actions

California law gives you one year from the date of a labor code violation to initiate the PAGA process. That means you must file a notice with the state agency before the one-year anniversary of your last unpaid wage, missed break, or misclassification.

Waiting until after that deadline makes it nearly impossible to move forward with a representative action. Even if other employees experienced similar treatment, you cannot stand in for them unless your claim is still valid.

For this reason, reaching out to an attorney immediately after your job ends or sooner, if you are still employed, helps preserve your legal options.

How Delay Can Hurt Even Strong Employee Claims

The worker in the appellate case had a long record of overtime violations. Still, the courts would not allow his complaint to proceed because of the timing. This is not unusual. Employers often succeed in getting cases dismissed when procedural rules are not followed precisely.

Even proposed amendments to his lawsuit could not fix the problem. Once the court ruled his claims were time-barred, no legal workaround could revive the action.

If you suspect your rights are being violated, every day matters. Consult a law firm focused exclusively on helping workers like you. Legal teams that understand employee protections can quickly evaluate your situation and ensure that no deadlines are missed.

Talk to a California Employment Law Firm That Represents Workers Only

The Nourmand Law Firm focuses solely on protecting employees across California. If your employer failed to pay you correctly, denied rest breaks, or misclassified your position, you may have a valid claim under the Labor Code. But time is limited. Call 800-700-WAGE (9243) today to speak with a California employment law attorney who can guide you through your options and help you act before your window to file closes. You do not need to face these challenges alone. Let us fight for the compensation you’ve earned.

What the Court Said About Meal Break Waivers

In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., the court reviewed whether a group of employees could move forward with claims that their employer violated California’s meal break laws. The employees had signed written agreements waiving their right to a 30-minute meal period for shifts that lasted no longer than six hours. These waivers were revocable and supposedly signed voluntarily.

The court ultimately sided with the employer, affirming that prospective waivers for shorter shifts are legal if they are not forced, coercive, or unconscionable. The decision emphasized that the agreement will likely stand as long as the waiver complies with Labor Code section 512 and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders.

Why This Matters for Workers in California

Although the court did not find a violation in this case, the outcome depends heavily on the facts. Waivers must be signed freely and may be revoked at any time. If your employer pressures you to waive your meal period or retaliates when you ask to take one, that may constitute unlawful behavior.

California law mandates that employees receive a 30-minute uninterrupted meal break if they work more than five hours daily. However, the law allows for a written waiver if the workday is no more than six hours. This ruling confirms that employers who comply with these rules and do not overreach may rely on such agreements.

How Employers Can Cross the Line

Even with this decision, the law does not give employers a free pass to avoid providing breaks. If you were misled about your rights, signed under pressure, or were told you could not revoke the waiver, you may still have a claim. The waiver must be voluntary, revocable, and used only for qualifying shifts.

Some companies apply these waivers to longer shifts or fail to honor revocation requests. Others use vague or outdated forms that do not clearly explain the employee’s rights. These practices can lead to wage claims and class action lawsuits.

When to Talk to an Employment Attorney

If you are unsure whether your meal break rights were violated, you should speak with an attorney on California employment law. An experienced legal team can review your work schedule, break records, and any documents you signed to determine whether your employer complies with the law.

Meal and rest breaks are more than routine; they are tied to your health and safety. Employers who take advantage of your time or rely on misleading waiver practices may be held accountable. Legal action may still be available if you are still working for the company or are no longer employed there.

The Nourmand Law Firm APC Fights for Fair Treatment at Work

At The Nourmand Law Firm, APC, we represent employees across California who have been denied fair pay, breaks, or working conditions. You may be entitled to compensation if your employer asked you to waive meal breaks or failed to provide them when required.

Call 800-700-WAGE (9243) today to schedule a consultation. Our team knows how to challenge improper waiver agreements and will work to ensure your rights are fully enforced. You deserve a workplace that respects your time and follows the law. Let us help you hold your employer accountable.

However, it’s important to note that the bill has not been without its challenges. It has faced significant opposition from business groups, who raise valid concerns about potential compliance complications, particularly in managing salaried employees. This resistance suggests that even if the bill is enacted, adherence might not be a straightforward process. Employees must be aware and ready to address potential violations of the law. In such situations, seeking advice from an employment rights attorney could be instrumental in ensuring their rights are protected under this new legislative framework.

Do Employees Need to Respond to Work Communications After Hours?

Employment lawyers report a growing concern among workers about the increasingly blurred boundaries between work and personal time. This issue has intensified with the rise of telework and work-from-home arrangements, which refer to situations where employees work remotely, often using technology to stay connected to their workplace. While these flexible working conditions offer reduced commuting times and enhanced work-life balance, they complicate the distinction between professional and private spaces. As a result, employees often respond to work communications outside of traditional work hours, infringing on their personal time and even during periods meant for rest or sickness.

The question of whether employees are obligated to engage in work-related communications after hours is becoming more pressing. Legal guidance in this area is crucial. Employees should understand their rights and protections under the law, especially as workplaces evolve. Those feeling pressured to be constantly available should seek advice from a knowledgeable attorney who can provide clear, direct information on effectively addressing this issue. This step can empower employees and ensure their rights are upheld in an increasingly connected and demanding work environment.

Workers need to know that help is available, and that they do not have to navigate these challenges alone. An employment rights attorney can offer essential support in understanding the ‘Right to Disconnect’ bill, establishing clear boundaries, and ensuring that employees’ rights are upheld in an increasingly connected and demanding work environment.

How Will the “Right to Disconnect’ Bill Impact California Workers?

If passed, the proposed “Right to Disconnect” bill would require employers to establish clear work hours for all employees, irrespective of whether they are paid hourly wages or a fixed salary. During these designated work hours, employers can expect employees to be responsive to work communications. However, outside these hours, employers would be prohibited from demanding responses to communications, with exceptions only for emergencies and critical scheduling changes.

This legislation would impact both salaried and hourly workers. Currently, hourly workers in California benefit from various protections, including overtime pay for hours worked beyond eight in a day and double pay for hours beyond twelve. Salaried employees, often exempt from these overtime laws, do not usually receive extra pay for additional work hours, making the clear delineation of work hours under this bill particularly beneficial.

However, the bill raises concerns about its practical implications, especially for positions where timeliness is crucial, such as communications, media, or public relations. These roles might necessitate near-constant availability, potentially leading employers to define work hours in excessively broad terms.

Furthermore, the bill’s provisions for emergencies are seen as vague. Additionally, it remains unclear how the law would handle scenarios where a manager or coworker sends after-hours messages without explicit penalties for non-response, leaving room for interpretation and potential legal disputes. Overall, while the “Right to Disconnect” bill aims to protect workers from the encroachment of work into personal time, its implementation and enforcement may face challenges, highlighting the need for clear guidelines and careful consideration.

If you have questions about a California’s new Right to Disconnect legislation, or any other wage and hour claim, reach out to The Nourmand Law Firm, APC at 800-700-WAGE. You can also connect with one of our Los Angeles employment lawyers by completing our secure online contact form.

Background of Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills

In Estrada, employees brought forward a lawsuit alleging various wage and hour violations against their employer, Royalty Carpet Mills. This case included a claim under PAGA representing a collective action for civil penalties for the alleged violations. The controversy centered around whether the trial court could dismiss the PAGA claim due to its complexity and manageability concerns.

Understanding PAGA and the Supreme Court Ruling

The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) allows California employees to file lawsuits for labor code violations for themselves and other employees. This act has been a powerful tool for addressing workplace issues. However, a key question arose: Can courts dismiss these claims if they are too complex or unmanageable?

In a definitive January 2024 ruling, the California Supreme Court clarified that courts do not have the inherent authority to dismiss PAGA claims solely based on manageability concerns. This decision marked a significant shift, particularly affecting the defense strategies of employers in PAGA actions.

The Impact of the Ruling on Employees

This ruling is a victory for employees, ensuring that their rights to bring PAGA claims are protected, regardless of the case’s complexity. It reaffirms PAGA’s purpose of effectively enforcing California’s labor laws. It allows employees to pursue justice for labor violations without fearing their claims being deemed too burdensome for the court. Some other key points from the decision include the following:

● Access to Justice: The ruling ensures that employees can hold employers accountable for labor violations through PAGA claims. ● No Manageability Barrier: The complexity of a case will not be a reason for dismissal, encouraging more employees to come forward with legitimate claims.

Despite this ruling, California employers still have many other measures to defend their claims. Thus, seeking the assistance of a California employment lawyer is crucial.

The Implications for Employers

Employers must take note of this ruling as it removes a potential defense against PAGA claims. Previously, some employers might have relied on the argument that a PAGA claim was too complex or unwieldy to manage in court as a means of defense. With this avenue closed employers must be even more vigilant in complying with labor laws to avoid PAGA claims.

While the Supreme Court ruled out manageability as a basis for dismissing PAGA claims, it acknowledged the challenges of handling complex cases. The court mentioned that other legal tools and procedures are available to effectively manage the complexities of PAGA litigation.

When to Contact a Lawyer

Given the complexities and the recent legal developments surrounding PAGA claims, seeking legal advice at the earliest opportunity is crucial. If you believe your employer has violated California’s labor laws, consult with an attorney to understand your rights under PAGA and the potential for your case. An experienced lawyer can guide you through the process and help ensure your claim is presented effectively in court.

Speak with an Experienced LA Employment Lawyer Today

If you are dealing with an employment issue, reach out to the Nourmand Law Firm, APC for immediate assistance. We have extensive experience helping employees pursue the relief they deserve after being subject to all types of employers’ wrongs.

Understanding SB 616 and Its Impact

SB 616 broadens the scope of PSL, mandating that nearly all California employers provide a minimum of 40 hours or five days of paid sick leave, whichever is greater. This change aims to enhance employees’ well-being and financial security, ensuring they have adequate time to recover from illness without losing income. The bill applies to employees who have worked for the same employer for at least 30 days within a year in California, covering a wide range of workers, including part-time, per diem, in-home supportive services providers, and temporary employees, with few exceptions.

Accrual and Usage of Paid Sick Leave

The new legislation offers flexibility in how PSL can be accrued. Employers may opt to provide 1 hour of PSL for every 30 hours worked, front-load 40 hours or 5 days of PSL at the beginning of each 12-month period, or implement an alternative accrual method that meets specific requirements. This adaptability ensures that employees have access to sick leave in a manner that suits various employment models.

Employers may set a 90-day employment condition before PSL can be used, but they also have the option to advance PSL to employees sooner. While a maximum accrual cap of 80 hours (or 10 days) can be imposed, employers must allow employees to carry over at least 40 hours of accrued PSL into the following year.

Rights to Carry Over and Written Notices

Crucially, SB 616 mandates that employees must be allowed to carry over a minimum of 40 hours of unused PSL, bolstering their ability to manage health needs over time. Employers must also provide clear written notice of an employee’s PSL balance, typically shown on pay stubs, ensuring transparency and aiding employees in tracking their entitlements.

Grandfathered Plans and Compliance

Some existing employer plans are “grandfathered” under the new law, meaning they can remain in effect if they meet certain criteria related to accrual and availability of PSL or PTO. This provision acknowledges and preserves the validity of previously established benefits that comply with or exceed the new minimum standards.

The Role of Legal Assistance

Understanding and leveraging the new PSL laws can be daunting for California employees. Legal counsel can be crucial in interpreting these changes, advocating for employees’ rights, and ensuring employers adhere to the new requirements. A lawyer can assist in clarifying the nuances of SB 616, addressing disputes over sick leave accrual, usage, and carryover, and guiding employees through securing their lawful benefits.

Legal support becomes essential in cases where employers may not fully comply with the new laws or where employees face challenges in exercising their rights to sick leave. Attorneys can help navigate these situations, ensuring employees receive the sick leave benefits they are entitled to under the law. To learn more, give the Nourmand Law Firm, APC, to learn more today.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case was a carpenter who was previously employed by the defendant. The plaintiff’s employment was conditioned upon agreeing to CBAs that were negotiated by two unions that the plaintiff was a member of. The CBAs in question mandated that any grievances employees had related to wage theft would be handled through binding arbitration, instead of in the state courts. The plaintiff made a claim in state court that the defendant had violated several employment laws and was not paying the plaintiff for work that had been done. The defendant responded to the plaintiff’s state court claims by attempting to enforce the arbitration agreement that was part of the CBAs. The state court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the case, leading the plaintiff to appeal the decision to the California Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the high court agreed with the lower court’s reasoning, holding that the grievance procedures outlined in the CBAs were clear and unambiguous and that the plaintiff had no right to ignore the CBAs. The court reasoned that a CBA should be evaluated just as any other contract would be and that the plaintiff understood and agreed to the CBA, and benefited from some of the provisions contained within it. As a result of the appellate findings and ruling, the plaintiff will be forced to pursue his claims at arbitration as stated in the CBAs.

Collective bargaining agreements and the work of unions in general help employees stand up to owners and management in most cases. Some provisions of CBAs are accepted as a compromise, and will not actually benefit employees. Arbitration requirements are a perfect example of this. If a CBA is otherwise valid and understandable, the undesirable provisions cannot be ignored, as the CBA contract must be evaluated as a whole.

Is it Possible to Challenge Provisions in a Collective Bargaining Agreement?

Although the recently decided appeal demonstrated that CBAs are binding contracts between employees and employers, all of the provisions of a CBA may not always be enforceable. If you or someone you know is facing an employment law issue and a CBA is involved, you may be able to work around the CBA provisions. The experienced California employment law attorneys with the Nourmand Law Firm can help you determine the best course of action for your claim. Even if the CBA is enforceable, our representation and advice can help you make the strongest claim to get what you deserve. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today.

One such remedy comes through applying California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which gives workers a separate cause of action to address unfair labor practices. The California Court of Appeals recently heard a case in which a plaintiff brought a claim of unlawful business practices under the UCL against their former employer, alleging that the defendant’s failure to pay the plaintiff’s due wages was a violation of the law. In the recently decided case, the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for failing to pay sufficient wages under an employment agreement. According to the procedural history discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff made legal claims for breach of contract based on unpaid wages and failure to reimburse business expenses and brought up equitable claims under the UCL with the same complaints.

The defendant responded to the plaintiff’s lawsuit by seeking to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims as agreed to in the employment contract. The parties’ employment contract contained a provision that legal claims for wage loss would be handled in arbitration; however, the contract specifically stated that equitable claims under the UCL were not subject to mandatory arbitration. The plaintiff agreed to dismiss their non-UCL claims but sought to have the UCL claim heard in court, not at arbitration. Based on the language of the arbitration agreement in the employment contract, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, triggering the appeal.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s UCL claim was really just a wage loss claim that was dressed up as a UCL claim. The defendant claimed that the types of UCL claims that were meant to be exempt from the arbitration agreement were not those that the plaintiff was bringing. The appellate court was not persuaded by the defendant’s arguments, ruling that the language of the arbitration agreement was clear that UCL claims were not subject to mandatory arbitration, while finding that the plaintiff’s claim for equitable relief under the UCL was legitimate and different from the legal breach of contract claims that had also been made. As a result of the appellate ruling and the plaintiff’s decision to seek relief under the UCL, the plaintiff will be able to have their claims heard in court instead of at arbitration (which tends to favor employers in this context).

Do you Have Questions About California Employment Law?

If you or a loved one has been treated unfairly at work, you may have a claim against your employer. Employment law in California can be complex, and claims based on the same sets of facts may proceed very differently depending on how your case is made. The experienced California employment law attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm understand the complexities of U.S. and California labor laws, and we know the best strategies for obtaining relief for our clients. Whether you have been the victim of workplace harassment, unpaid wages, physical injury, or some other harm at the hands of your employer, we are here to help. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today. You can also complete our online form to get started.

In the case, Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the plaintiff filed a complaint against her employer, alleging that the employer improperly calculated her payment for non-compliant meal periods and rest periods. Under California law, employers must also provide employees with required meal, rest, and recovery periods. Under section 226.7 of the California Labor Code, if an employer fails to provide an employee with a compliant meal, rest, or recovery period, the employer must pay the employee an additional hour of pay at the employee’s “regular rate of compensation.” Under another section of the Code, California employers are required to provide their employees with overtime pay when employees work more than a certain amount of time. Overtime pay is calculated by multiplying the employee’s “regular rate of pay,” which factors in all wages and other non-discretionary earnings, such as non-discretionary bonuses and incentive compensation.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The issue before the Supreme Court was the meaning of the phrase “regular rate of compensation.” The defendant employer argued that the employee only had to be paid her hourly wage for non-compliant periods. The employee, on the other hand, argued that her pay had to reflect adjustments to the hourly wage for non-hourly compensation employees earned during the pay period.

The court held that “regular rate of compensation” was meant to be interpreted in the same way that “regular rate of pay” is used in the overtime context under Labor Code section 510. The court looked at the regulatory and legislative history of the statute and decided that the intent was that the phrases “regular rate of compensation” and “regular rate of pay” were meant to have the same meaning.

This decision means that the pay for non-compliant periods must be paid at a “regular rate” rather than the employee’s straight hourly wage—meaning that a non-compliant meal, rest, or recovery period must be calculated by factoring in all wages as well as other non-discretionary payments for work. The decision is retroactive, meaning that employees who failed to be properly paid will be able to recover compensation for payments that were already made.

California Employment Lawyers Fighting for Workers

If you believe your wages were miscalculated you may be entitled to compensation and may be able to recover it through a California wage and hour lawsuit. The California employment lawyers at The Nourmand Law Firm assist employees in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties, as well as Oakland, Sacramento, and other areas. We have represented employees in California for over 20 years and we strive to ensure that our clients’ rights are protected in disputes with their employers. To schedule a free consultation, fill out our online form or call us at 310-553-3600.

In the case before the Court, the Court considered whether rounding time was permissible in the context of a meal period. In the case of a named plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, the plaintiff’s employer used a timekeeping system that rounded the time punches to the nearest 10-minute increment. So if an employee clocked out for lunch at 11:02 and clocked in at 11:25, it would be recorded as 11:00 and 11:30. Thus, the employee’s meal period was only 23 minutes, as opposed to the full 30 minutes. An expert estimated that the use of the timekeeping system resulted in a denial of premium wages for short and delayed lunches amounting to over $800,000.

The Court maintained that employers could not round time in the context of meal periods. The court held that time rounding does not comply with the precise time requirements set out in Labor Code section 512 and Wage Order No. 4. The court reasoned that the relatively short length of a 30-minute meal period means that the potential incursion on that period is significant. The court held that the provisions concerning meal periods are intended to prevent even minor infringements on the meal period requirements, and rounding time does not meet that objective. The court held that even if the employer overpaid the members of the class for actual work based on the timekeeping, the issue is whether the rounding policy resulted in the proper payment of premium wages for meal period violations. The court also held that if an employer’s records indicate that no meal period was taken for a shift over five hours, there is a rebuttable presumption that the employee was not relieved of duty and no meal period was provided. Thus, the employer can assert this as a defense, and it is the employer’s burden to plead and prove that assertion.

Employees should document missed, short, or late breaks and the reasons for them to make sure that they are paid the wages they are due. They should also verify that their breaks are being properly recorded. California courts “liberally construe the Labor Code and wage orders to favor the protection of employees,” and employees should make sure their rights are being protected.

Consult with a California Employee Rights Lawyer

If you believe your rights may have been violated, consult with the Los Angeles employee rights lawyers at The Nourmand Law Firm, APC. At The Nourmand Law Firm, we have dedicated our practice to protecting employees in California for more than 20 years. We understand that the challenges you face in protecting your rights can seem insurmountable, and we will act as your advocate to ensure that your voice is heard. Call us today to discuss your case at 800-700-WAGE (9243) or contact us through our online form.

There is a growing number of California workers who have successfully challenged their employers’ unlawful compensation practices. While federal law does not provide as much protection to employees, California state law requires employers to compensate employees when the worker is under the employer’s control. Many California class-action lawsuits stem from employers refusing to compensate workers for time spent undergoing security and bag checks.

Two significant cases arose from employment lawsuits against Apple and Amazon. In the case against Apple, employees claimed that they were required to undergo mandatory security checks before leaving company property for any reason. The time spent waiting took anywhere between 5 to 45 minutes. The employees argued that this time could amount to nearly two hours of unpaid overtime a week and over 100 hours every year. In reviewing the case, the courts analyzed whether the waiting time was compensable under the “control standard.” Inquiries regarding whether the employee is under the employer’s control require the court to look at the totality of the circumstances. Some relevant factors involve whether the employer requires the activity, where the activity occurs, if the activity benefits the employer or employee and whether an employee may be subject to disciplinary measures if they do not comply. In the case against Apple, the court found that the search was mandatory, occurred at the workplace, involved significant control by the employer, and benefits the employer by deterring theft. As such, the California court of appeals held that the technology giant must pay the nearly 12,000 affected employees for the time they spent during these mandatory screenings.

Similarly, Amazon employees brought a lawsuit alleging that they were unpaid for the time they spent waiting at mandatory security screenings at Amazon’s warehouse facilities. The workers alleged that the searches could last over 30 minutes from the time they clocked out. Amazon agreed to settle the case with its employees.

Has Your California Employer Engaged in Wage Theft?

If your employer has engaged in unfair or unlawful employment practices, contact The Nourmand Law Firm. The California employment law attorneys at our firm dedicate their practice to fighting for employee rights. We advocate on behalf of workers to ensure that they are treated fairly under the law. Our law firm handles California employment law claims stemming from wrongful termination, wage and hour disputes, discrimination, and sexual harassment. Damages in California employment lawsuits typically include compensation for lost wages and benefits, loss of reputation, emotional distress, and other fees. Contact our office at 800-700-9243 to schedule a free and confidential initial consultation with an employment lawyer on our team.

California’s wage law works to “protect and benefit” those working on public works projects. From a public policy perspective, the law works to protect employees from substandard wages, allow union contractors to compete with nonunion contractors, and compensate nonpublic employees with higher wages to address the lack of job security and benefits they do not enjoy.

Under CLC, employers must provide prevailing wages to anyone “employed on public works”, including those working under a contractor or subcontractor on a project for public work. Section (a)(1) defines “public works’ to include construction, alteration, demolition, installation or repair work. Section (a)(2) further explains that public work is work done for “irrigation, utility, reclamation” and District improvement.

The defendant argued that the plaintiffs sorting work did not fall under any of the enumerated categories, and therefore, the statute did not cover their allegations. Specifically, the defendant claimed that recycling does not fit into the widely accepted definition of “public work.” In this case, the California Supreme Court determined that the work was undoubtedly done for the District. However, the critical inquiry was whether the statute provided a limitation on the scope of work it covers. The court reasoned that the statute does not provide any limiting language. In fact, the legislature specifically removed the previous limiting language. Although the opinion left some questions unanswered, the court ultimately found that the belt sorters’ work qualifies under the statute.

Has Your Employer Breached California Labor Laws?

If you believe you have been subject to California labor law violations, contact The Nourmand Law Firm, APC. Our practice is dedicated to fighting for California employee rights, and only handle employment cases on behalf of employees. We handle claims stemming from California employment law, employment discrimination, sexual harassment, wrongful termination, retaliation, wage and hour laws, class actions, and defamation. We strongly believe that every client and case deserves respect, compassion, and zealous representation. Our attorneys provide clients with a strategic and personalized approach to address their employment concerns. Remedies in these cases often include reinstatement, hiring, payment of back wages, and compensatory damages. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation, contact The Nourmand Law Firm at 800-700-9243 to discuss your rights and remedies.

For instance, the Supreme Court of California recently decided two questions of law related to a class-action lawsuit against an employer for wage-and-hour violations. In this case, the defendant is a healthcare service and staffing company. The company assigned the plaintiff to work eight-hour days at various shifts. The defendant maintained a policy that the meal period was for an “uninterrupted” 30 minutes, and workers were relieved from job duties during and could leave the premises during this period. Further, the policy specified that supervisors should not discourage workers from using this meal period.

Although the policy seems to comply with the state’s wage and hour laws, an issue arose because the employees used an electronic timekeeping system that rounded their punched time to the nearest 10-minute allotment. For instance, if an employee clocked out for their break at 12:02 p.m. and returned at 12:25, p.m., the record would show a 30-minute break instead of a 23-minute break. This was most relevant when a nurse would take lunch at the end of their fifth hour of work. The defendants won their motions at trial on the basis that California’s wage-and-hour laws do not prohibit rounding.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed two significant issues involving rounding timekeeping and how it applies in the context of summary judgment. On the first issue, the court ruled that rounding timekeeping does not meet the state’s Labor Code which is to be “liberally construed in favor of the employee.” They found that even minor rounding errors can amount to a significant infringement of a worker’s right to their meal period. Secondly, the court found that “time records showing noncompliant” lunch periods raise a rebuttable presumption of an employment violation. The court clarified that shortened, delayed, or missed periods do not automatically impute liability on an employer, but instead, they can rebut the presumption by presenting relevant evidence. In sum, the court reinforced California labor laws in favor of employees.

Has Your Employer Engaged in Wage and Labor Violations?

If you believe your employer is violating California wage-and-hour laws, contact The Nourmand Law Firm, APC, to discuss your rights and remedies. For over 20 years, the attorneys at our law firm have solely represented employees in claims against their employers. We provide clients with the dignity, respect, and compassion that they deserve throughout these complicated claims. Our experienced attorneys have successfully represented California employees in their claims regarding wage-and-hour violations, discrimination, and other employment infractions. Contact our office at 800-700-WAGE to discuss your case today.

The new COVID-19 stimulus package signed into law allows states to waive attempts to collect excessive PUA payments as long as workers meet two requirements:

1. Their original PUA application was filed in good faith
2. Repaying the state would result in financial hardship

Confusion existed over initial applications

Under the March 2020 coronavirus relief bill, thousands of gig workers reported their total earnings to the Employment Development Department (EDD), which oversees the state’s PUA. However, they were supposed to report how much they made after deducting expenses.

That led to thousands of workers receiving more aid than they should have gotten – some up to $10,000 more. Once the errors became evident, the EDD later tried to get the overpayments back by asking workers to verify their net incomes. Under the initial relief bill, states could not waive efforts to collect overpayment amounts. But that changes under the current extension.

Waivers are typically granted during recessions

The National Employment Law Project says state agencies generally approve waivers in these cases. Californians who receive a notice of overpayment can file for the waiver by completing a Personal Financial Statement verifying their income.

Mistakes often happen during economic emergencies, and in this case, vague language in the original PUA led to a widespread misunderstanding. The Law Project says the EDD has shown compassion in the past and approved waivers in most cases, especially if repayment causes economic hardship.

Aid extended through March 2021

The newly-signed aid bill essentially extends the PUA through at least March 21, which means nothing has changed. However, gig workers and independent contractors who file for aid should report their “net” income, meaning the amount they receive after deducting expenses.

Some gig workers may qualify for unemployment benefits

The passage of Proposition 22 redefines gig workers as independent contractors – affecting hundreds of thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers as well as those working for app-based delivery services. However, prior to that measure taking effect in mid-December, many of those workers were classified as employees under Assembly Bill 5.

Groups representing gig workers urge those individuals to file for regular unemployment benefits, which could mean thousands of dollars more in payments compared to the PUA. Under AB 5, most of these workers were entitled to receive benefits, including unemployment insurance, for the past 18 months before Prop. 22 went into effect.

According to court records, roughly 1,630 employees will receive an average payment of $12,000 as part of the settlement. California workers are included under a second class-action suit filed against the company.

A nine-year court battle erupted over worker classifications

Hundreds of workers classified as assistant managers (ASM) say the company directed them to do non-managerial tasks identical to those performed by non-exempt employees, forcing them to work extra hours for no pay. These duties included:

• Loading and unloading trucks
• Stocking store shelves
• Assisting customers
• Janitorial work

The first lawsuit was filed in June 2011, charging Burlington with wrongly classifying these workers as ASMs to exempt them from overtime requirements.

Financial stress likely led to settlement

Like many other retailers, 2020 was a rough year for Burlington, which reported a loss of $333 million during the first nine months of the year. During the same period in 2019, the chain reported nearly $280 million in earnings.

The company has 730 stores across the country and reported total sales during that same nine-month period dropped by more than $1.5 billion during 2020. Despite the economic turmoil, the U.S. magistrate overseeing the settlement says the deal was hard-fought during mediation.

Worker misclassification is a common issue in California

Employers routinely misclassify their workers, whether they are full-time employees or independent contractors, to avoid paying overtime and offering other benefits, such as health care, sick leave, unemployment insurance and meal breaks.

California has some of the most stringent worker protections in the country. Employees are presumed to be non-exempt workers unless an employer can prove they are exempt or independent contractors. If you believe you have been misclassified, working with an aggressive wage law attorney can help you receive the pay and benefits you are entitled to receive.

That changed in 2019 when Assembly Bill 1066 went into effect. Starting on Jan. 1, 2019, a new timetable began for overtime rules affecting farmworkers. The changes are being phased-in until they receive roughly the same treatment for overtime pay as workers in most other professions.

The law only applies to larger employers for now

So far, the law has only affected agricultural companies with 26 or more workers. In 2019 those employers were required to pay time-and-a-half overtime to those working more than 9.5 hours per day and 55 hours per week. Last year, that changed to nine hours per day and 50 per week. The final two years of the transition look like this:

• 2021: OT must be paid for hours worked above 8.5 per day and 45 hours per week.
• 2022: The thresholds change to eight hours per day and 40 hours per week.

Changes coming for smaller employers

Agricultural employers with 25 or fewer workers only have one more year to prepare for the same requirements. As with the larger employers, the changes will be phased-in starting each year on Jan. 1:

• 2022: OT paid for hours worked above 9.5 per day and 55 per week.
• 2023: OT paid for hours worked above nine per day and 50 per week.
• 2024: OT paid for hours worked above 8.5 per day and 45 per week.
• 2025: OT paid for hours worked above eight per day and 40 per week.

Once all farmworkers are entitled to receive time-and-a-half OT for working more than eight hours per day and 40 per week, employers must pay double-time for anyone working more than 12 hours per day. That will happen as of Jan. 1, 2022, for employers with more than 26 workers, but not until 2025 for smaller employers.

Wage and hour violations are common in the Golden State

The U.S. Department of Labor says nearly 80% of all U.S. employers do not comply with wage and hour laws. If your employer refuses to follow the law, an experienced wage and hour attorney can help you receive what you deserve. Your attorney will investigate your claim and take action, which could include filing a lawsuit.

Working “off the clock” is a common wage and hour violation for any uncompensated work done for an employer that should count for overtime purposes.

Typical off-the-clock violations

California labor laws as well as the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) protect most employees. Some workers are exempt from these requirements, but most are nonexempt employees protected by minimum wage, overtime and other labor laws. Examples of off-the-clock violations include:

• Employees not paid for prep work, such as setting up tables in a restaurant, loading delivery vehicles, transferring equipment or setting up a worksite
• Unpaid tasks or chores after a shift, such as cleaning up or finishing projects that should have been completed during scheduled work hours
• Finishing paperwork, meeting with a manager or undergoing training before or after a shift
• Being asked to redo or correct reports or other work without pay
• Waiting for a new assignment when no additional work is readily available
• Being required to remain “on-call” at a job site over the weekend

Often, workers are asked to “stay late” to finish a project but directed not to report it because the manager wants to avoid overtime.

Recovering back wages and OT

Employers must pay nonexempt California workers for performing all required and unrequired work duties. This includes work done on and off the job site. An experienced attorney who understands state and federal labor laws, penalties and remedies can help you take action.

Your lawyer can help file a claim with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement as well as determine whether a civil lawsuit is necessary to receive compensation. You will need to prove that you performed work for which you were not paid, that the employer knew and did not prevent you from performing those duties or take steps to make sure you were compensated.

In the Golden State, employers can only make deductions allowed under state or federal laws, or when an employee authorizes them. That approval must be in writing and include insurance premiums or deductions for other health, welfare or pension contributions.

Unlawful payroll deductions

An employer’s ability to deduct wages based on a cash shortage, breakage or loss of equipment is detailed through court decisions and regulated by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Common illegal deductions include:

• Gratuities: Employers cannot confiscate tips left for servers in restaurants. However, they can establish tip pooling policies, where employees providing direct table service share equally.
• Photographs: Employers must pay the cost of mandated ID photos.
• Bond: If a fidelity bond is required for the position, employers must pay.
• Uniforms: When an employee is required to wear a uniform, the company must absorb the cost.
• Business expenses: When an employee incurs costs or losses due to their job duties, they must be reimbursed by the employer.
• Medical exams: Employers cannot force applicants to pay for a pre-employment physical or medical examination as a condition for employment. Likewise, they cannot deduct a current employee’s pay for exams required by federal, state or local laws, regulations and ordinances.

Employers who make loans to employees can make deductions to paychecks if authorized by the worker. However, strict rules apply, and lump sum payments are not allowed on a final paycheck for a terminated worker.

Compensation for unlawful deductions

Workers whose pay is illegally deducted can recover penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees. When significant losses or multiple claims arise, working with an experienced employment attorney is crucial for receiving compensation and meeting deadlines to file. Your attorney will advise you on filing a claim with the state Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. In many cases, it may be appropriate to file a lawsuit.

If you suspect that you were wrongfully terminated, you’re sure to have feelings of both frustration and anger. Rather than let your feelings boil over, here’s what you need to do:

• Keep your cool: When you learn of your termination, it’s easy to let your emotions get the best of you. For example, it’s tempting to lash out and accuse your employer of wrongful termination. It’s best to keep your cool, ask key questions and begin to formulate your next moves.
• Collect evidence: Should you have any evidence related to your wrongful termination, keep it nearby for future use. For example, if a supervisor sent you an email that you found suspicious, print it out as soon as possible.
• Consider any offer your employer makes: Despite your termination, your employer may make you a severance offer to provide some payment for your service. You should strongly consider the offer, starting with a thorough review of the details. But before you do anything, request that the company put the offer in writing.
• Talk to the HR department: You have the right to ask questions regarding your termination, such as the reason why. The company won’t necessarily provide you with straight answers, but that shouldn’t stop you from asking. All the information you collect at this time can help you in the future.

There’s no exact playbook for what you should do in the event that you’re wrongfully terminated. The steps you take depend largely on your circumstances.

If you have reason to believe your legal rights were violated, such as a termination resulting from your race or religious affiliation, you may be able to take action against your employer.

This is a time to collect evidence, learn more about your legal rights and decide how to hold the company responsible for their actions. If you’re successful, you may be able to regain your position and/or obtain compensation for damages.

If you experience any of these infractions, you can submit a claim with the California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). Here is an overview of the process.

Types of claims filed

While employers often violate federal wage and hour laws, California laws typically provide more protections for workers, meaning claims are generally based on state law. Wage claims include violations, such as:

• Not being paid overtime
• Being paid less than the minimum wage
• Not receiving rest or meal breaks
• Unpaid vacation time
• Unauthorized deductions
• Unpaid tips and commissions

How does the process work?

To file a claim, you or your attorney must fill out an “Initial Report” (DLSE Form 1) with details about yourself, your employer, your work schedule and the violations you experienced. You may have to file additional forms if:

• Your work schedule is irregular, or work hours vary
• You were not paid for vacation time
• You were not paid commissions that you earned
• Your employer retaliated against you

Documents to include

The DLSE asks for documentation to back up your claim. While you do not have to attach these to the complaint itself, these include:

• Pay stubs during the period of your claim
• Time cards or other records showing hours worked during this period
• Bounced checks from your employer
• Copy of the “Notice to Employee” document you received when you were hired

The DLSE asks your employer for these documents as well, so you don’t necessarily have to provide them with your claim. However, you should attach any employment contract that shows your pay rate as promised by the employer.

What is the deadline to file?

Three deadlines exist for filing claims. You must submit a claim within three years for most wage violations. The DLSE will also review the past three years from the date of your claim if the infractions were ongoing.

However, if your claim is based on an employer’s oral commitment, you only have two years to file. You have four years if the claim is based on a written contract. Contacting an experienced employment law attorney as soon as possible will help ensure that your claim is filed correctly and on time.