I know, sounds obvious. But folks were claiming that waiting time penalties, like meal period penalties, are a form of wage. They were making this argument to permit claims for waiting time penalties under California's unfair competition law, because that law has a four year statute of limitations.
No sale, said the California Supreme Court in Pineda v. Bank of America (opinion here). In that case, Pineda received his wages four days late. He brought a class action for waiting time penalties. on behalf of everyone who was paid late under Bank of America's final pay policies.
Pineda argued that he should be able to sue for waiting time penalties under California's unfair competition law (Bus. Prof. Code section 17200). The Supreme Court rejected that argument because waiting time penalties are not "restitution," the only time that money is recoverable under the UCL. Plaintiffs wanted to use the UCL to benefit from that law's four-year statute of limitations.
But the Supreme Court giveth, and taketh away. The other issue decided today is that the statute of limitations for waiting time penalties is not affected by whether the employer ultimately paid the wages, albeit late.
The lower courts dismissed the case because he did not file his case within a year of his termination. The lower courts applied case law like in McCoy v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 225, 229-230. There, the court of appeal held a one-year statute of limitations applies to waiting time penalty claims if the wages are paid as of the time of suit.
The Supreme Court rejected McCoy and held that in all instances, the waiting time penalty statute, Labor Code Section 203, imposes the same statute of limitations. That section says that the statute of limitations for waiting time penalties is the same as the limitations period applied to the underlying wage claims. The Supreme Court said that rule applies whether the wages are paid or not at the time of suit.
DGV
Arizona Medical Marijuana Law
So, there was a big debate over what would happen in the workplace if California's Prop. 19 were to pass. If you have a short memory, that was the initiative to basically legalize personal use of marijuana. Well, that initiative failed to pass back on November 2.
In Arizona, on the other hand, the voters passed their own Prop. 203. Text is here.
Prop. 203 legalizes certain "medical marijuana," making AZ the 15th state to do so. But AZ's new law expressly protects medical marijuana users at the workplace:
6-2813. Discrimination prohibited
Rad, huh? So, you can't smoke pot AT work. The employer doesn't have to give up federal dollars to permit users to have pot in their system. ... But generally, (1) no taking action based on positive drug tests unless the level in the blood suggests impairment (2) employers don't have to let you work "impaired" (stoned) or under the influence (buzzed?).
I guess we're going to find out what "impaired" and "under the influence" means through a series of regulations that are supposed to be issued within the next few months.
Remember, this isn't a general legalization of marijuana. It will apply only to "qualified" patients who are certified as having the requisite medical conditions.
Good luck Arizona employers!
DGV
In Arizona, on the other hand, the voters passed their own Prop. 203. Text is here.
Prop. 203 legalizes certain "medical marijuana," making AZ the 15th state to do so. But AZ's new law expressly protects medical marijuana users at the workplace:
6-2813. Discrimination prohibited
***.
B. UNLESS A FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD CAUSE AN EMPLOYER TO LOSE A MONETARY OR LICENSING RELATED BENEFIT UNDER FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATIONS, AN EMPLOYER MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A PERSON IN HIRING, TERMINATION OR IMPOSING ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT OR OTHERWISE PENALIZE A PERSON BASED UPON EITHER:
1. THE PERSON'S STATUS AS A CARDHOLDER.
2. A REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT'S POSITIVE DRUG TEST FOR MARIJUANA COMPONENTS OR METABOLITES, UNLESS THE PATIENT USED, POSSESSED OR WAS IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA ON THE PREMISES OF THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT OR DURING THE HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT.
36-2814. Acts not required; acts not prohibited
A. NOTHING IN THIS CHAPTER REQUIRES:
* * *
3. AN EMPLOYER TO ALLOW THE INGESTION OF MARIJUANA IN ANY WORKPLACE OR ANY EMPLOYEE TO WORK WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA, EXCEPT THAT A REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF METABOLITES OR COMPONENTS OF MARIJUANA THAT APPEAR IN INSUFFICIENT CONCENTRATION TO CAUSE IMPAIRMENT.
B. NOTHING IN THIS CHAPTER PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER FROM DISCIPLINING AN EMPLOYEE FOR INGESTING MARIJUANA IN THE WORKPLACE OR WORKING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARIJUANA.
Rad, huh? So, you can't smoke pot AT work. The employer doesn't have to give up federal dollars to permit users to have pot in their system. ... But generally, (1) no taking action based on positive drug tests unless the level in the blood suggests impairment (2) employers don't have to let you work "impaired" (stoned) or under the influence (buzzed?).
I guess we're going to find out what "impaired" and "under the influence" means through a series of regulations that are supposed to be issued within the next few months.
Remember, this isn't a general legalization of marijuana. It will apply only to "qualified" patients who are certified as having the requisite medical conditions.
Good luck Arizona employers!
DGV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)