Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Labor
Employees Successfully State Causes of Action for
Back Pay,
Skipped Meals, and Break Periods
Eric H. FoyNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Doe v. D.M. Camp and Sons, No. CIV-F-05-1417 AWI SMS, 2009 WL 921442 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2009), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs, employees of the defendants, alleged that the defendants failed to properly pay wages and provide meals and breaks. In denying the defendants' motions to dismiss, the court held that the plaintiffs' allegations properly stated claims for back pay and compensation for meals and breaks.
Background
The defendants, commercial grape growers, formerly employed the plaintiffs. Id. at *1. The plaintiffs brought the instant action alleging that the defendants "failed to properly pay wages by forcing employees to work off the clock, forcing employees to purchase tools out of pocket, failing to pay minimum required wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failing to maintain time records." Id. The defendants motioned to dismiss on a number of grounds. Id.
Arguments
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act (AWPA); 29 U.S.C. § 1801; a remedy was not available for Industrial Welfare Commission Work Order 14 "meal and rest period violations under Cal. Labor Code § 226.7"; and "the court should decline to assert supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims." Id.
Analysis and Holdings
The AWPA provides an avenue for seasonal and migrant agricultural employees to bring suit against employers for back wages or violations of working arrangements. Id. Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Order 14-2001, which the plaintiffs alleged was posted at the defendants' work site, sets out state regulations to protect agricultural employees. Id. Many of the plaintiffs' claims were brought pursuant to the AWPA, and the remaining claims were heard through the federal court's supplemental jurisdiction. Id.
The court first addressed the plaintiffs' claim that they had worked "for periods of more than five hours without a meal period of 30 minutes and were not provided full statutory ten minute rest periods while in the employ of [d]efendants." Id. at *3. The plaintiffs asserted that they "did not voluntarily or willfully waive rest and/or meal periods." Id. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' actions in not providing meals and rest periods violated Cal. Labor. Code § 226.7, while the defendants asserted "that [p]laintiffs [had] failed to state a claim under Section 226.7." Id. Ultimately, the court agreed with the plaintiffs, stating,
The right of the employee to take the meal period is statutorily protected. In the event [that] a meal period is not taken by the employee, the burden is on the employer to show that the agricultural employee had been advised of his or her legal right to take a meal period and has knowingly and voluntarily decided not to take the meal period.
Id. at *5.
For this reason, the blanket waiver of resting or meal periods, whether written or oral, was invalid. Id.
The court then addressed whether the plaintiffs were due back pay. Id. at *10. The plaintiffs sought "penalties under Cal. Labor Code § 203 for the [d]efendants' non-compliance with Cal. Labor Code §§ 201 and 202, which govern[ed] the timing of pay for an employee who [was] discharged or quits." Id. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were not discharged because their jobs ended at the end of the agricultural season. Id. at *11. However, the California Supreme Court stated that the end of seasonal work constituted a discharge. Id. at *12 (citing Smith v. Superior Court, 137 P.3d 218 (Cal. 2006)). For this reason, the court held that the "allegations of discharge from seasonal agricultural work state[d] a claim under California's waiting time penalty laws." Id.
The case was decided on March 31, 2009.