ARTICLE
23 August 2018

The California Supreme Court To Decide Whether California's Labor Laws Apply To Employees Who Work Only Partially In California

B
BakerHostetler

Contributor

BakerHostetler logo
Recognized as one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler is a leading national law firm that helps clients around the world address their most complex and critical business and regulatory issues. With five core national practice groups — Business, Labor and Employment, Intellectual Property, Litigation, and Tax — the firm has more than 970 lawyers located in 14 offices coast to coast. BakerHostetler is widely regarded as having one of the country’s top 10 tax practices, a nationally recognized litigation practice, an award-winning data privacy practice and an industry-leading business practice. The firm is also recognized internationally for its groundbreaking work recovering more than $13 billion in the Madoff Recovery Initiative, representing the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Visit bakerlaw.com
For a company that does 100 percent of its business in California and employs workers who perform 100 percent of their work in California, it would not be surprising for the workers' employment
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

For a company that does 100 percent of its business in California and employs workers who perform 100 percent of their work in California, it would not be surprising for the workers' employment to be governed by California's labor laws. But what if the employer operates in multiple states and the employees work in multiple states, with only a small fraction of their work performed in California – do California's labor laws apply then? That is the question the California Supreme Court recently agreed to answer.

The California Supreme Court was presented with this question in three cases involving airlines – Oman v. Delta Air Lines (Case No. S248726), Ward v. United Airlines (Case No. S248702) and Vidrio v. United Airlines (Case No. S248702). Oman and Vidrio involve flight attendants, while Ward involves pilots. In Oman, a sampling of data revealed the four plaintiffs spent at most 14 percent of their time working in California. The class member flight attendants in Vidrio spent an average of 17 percent of their time at work in airspace above California, while the class member pilots in Ward spent an average of 12 percent of their work time in airspace above California. Additionally, the class members in Vidrio and Ward are California residents who pay California's state income tax on their income. Of the four plaintiffs in Oman, two resided in California and were based at California airports, a third was based at a California airport but was not a California resident, and a fourth was neither based at a California airport nor a California resident.

The three cases originated in federal court, and after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was presented with briefing and heard the cases, the Ninth Circuit decided to ask the California Supreme Court to answer the questions presented, as the questions involved issues of substantive California law. The California Supreme Court has now agreed to answer the various questions presented by the three cases, which specifically involve the application of California Labor Code Section 226 and an employer's duty to provide certain information on employee wage statements issued to employees as well as the application of California's minimum wage and overtime laws.

The implications of a ruling that employees who work in California only 10 to 20 percent of the time are subject to California's labor laws could be significant. For example, California Labor Code Section 226 has nine requirements for wage statements, and penalties for noncompliance include $50 for the first violation and $100 for each subsequent violation, capped at $4,000 per employee.

It is unclear when the California Supreme Court will render a decision. The briefing has not yet begun, and the California Supreme Court has no set requirement for scheduling a fully briefed case for oral argument. Once the court hears argument and the matter is submitted, however, the court has three months to render a decision.

The Bottom Line

Companies employing workers who perform a minority of their work in California may soon be required to comply with California's labor laws.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More