322 | 2025 Cal-Peculiarities ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 466 See, e.g., Cal. Hosp. Ass’n v. Henning, 770 F.2d 856, modified, 783 F.2d 946 (9th Cir. 1985); Milan v. Rest. Enter. Grp., Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 477 (1993). See also Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc., 209 Cal. App. 4th 62, 73 (2012) (reversing summary judgment against claim of unlawfully denied termination vacation pay; employer could not win on defense of ERISA preemption on its motion for summary judgment, because plaintiffs raised triable issue of fact that the vacation benefits plan was funded from employer’s general assets and not—as ERISA would require—from a separate trust). 467 Church v. Jamison, 143 Cal. App. 4th 1568 (2006). 468 Hartstein v. Hyatt Corp., 82 F.4th 825 (9th Cir. 2023). 469 Lab. Code § 227.3. 470 Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc., 209 Cal. App. 4th 62, 75 (2012) (affirming summary judgment for the employer: Section 227.3 applies only to termination payout, and does NOT require that vacation be paid at the employee’s regular rate of pay during employment; “Neither Labor Code section 227.3 nor any other authority cited by plaintiffs supports the proposition that, apart from the situation where an employee is terminated with unused vacation time, a vacation benefits policy must provide for payment of vacation time at an employee’s regular rate of pay.”). 471 McPherson v. EF Intercultural Found., Inc., 47 Cal. App. 5th 243, 265 (2020). 472 Id. at 268-60. 473 Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal. 4th 1075 (2005), abrogated by Martinez v. Coombs, 49 Cal. 4th 35, 50 n.12 (2010), to the extent Reynolds limited definition of “employer” to the common law definition. 474 Reynolds, 36 Cal. 4th at 1090. 475 Id. at 1087-88, 1090. See also Bradstreet v. Wong, 161 Cal. App. 4th 1440, 1461 (2008) (where now-bankrupt corporations failed to pay earned wages, the corporate shareholders, officers, and managing agents are not personally liable for unpaid wages absent any indication that they were corporate alter egos; absent finding that employees performed labor for individuals rather than for the benefit of corporate employers, or that corporate agents appropriated corporate funds that otherwise would have paid wages, an order requiring those individuals to pay wages would not be “restitutionary,” as it would not replace any money or property that individuals took directly from employees). Bradstreet was abrogated by Martinez v. Coombs, 49 Cal. 4th 35, 50 n.12 (2010), to the extent Bradstreet followed Reynolds v. Bement as to the definition of “employer.” 476 A later Court of Appeal case, Jones v. Gregory, 137 Cal. App. 4th 798 (2006), strongly questioned the proposition that the Labor Commissioner has any more authority than a private litigant does to pursue a claim for unpaid wages against individuals in addition to the traditional employer. Id. at 805-08. This decision was abrogated by the California Supreme Court in Martinez v. Coombs, 39 Cal. 4th 35, 50 n.12 (2010), and it was disapproved of on other grounds by ZB, N.A. v. Superior Ct., 8 Cal. 5th 175 (2019). 477 Reynolds, 36 Cal. 4th at 1088-89. 478 Turman v. Superior Ct. (Koji’s Japan Inc.), 17 Cal. App. 5th 969, 986 (2017). The Court of Appeal also suggested that California’s definition of employer under the Wage Order can be as broad as the FLSA’s definition, for purposes of imposing personal liability. Id. at 987 (finding there are “similar factors applicable to determining federal joint employer liability, notwithstanding the separate definitions of the term employer under state and federal law”). Meanwhile, the trial court also “failed to address whether Parent might be a joint employer under the definitions of the term ‘employer’ applicable to plaintiffs’ claims under the unfair competition law, the tip misappropriation statute, and PAGA.” Id. at 974. 479 Id. at 980-81. 480 See Lab. Code §§ 98, 558.1. 481 Lab. Code § 558.1(b). 482 Atempa v Pedrazzani, 27 Cal. App. 5th 809, 820 (2018). 483 Espinoza v. Hepta Run, Inc., 74 Cal. App. 5th 44, 60 (2022). 484 Usher v. White, 64 Cal. App. 5th 883, 896 (2021). 485 Seviour-Iloff v. LaPaille, 80 Cal. App. 5th 427, 446 (2022). 486 Id. 487 Id. 488 Voris v. Lampert, 7 Cal. 5th 1141, 1156-58 (2019) (affirming judgment on pleadings to part-owner; “We see no sufficient justification for layering tort liability on top of the extensive existing remedies demanding that this sort of error promptly be fixed.”). 489 Kao v. Holiday, 58 Cal. App. 5th 199 (2020) (affirming award of unpaid wages, attorney fees, and costs against company and individual owners, jointly and severally, under alter ego doctrine). 490 Id. at 205 (internal citation omitted). 491 Id. (internal citation omitted). 492 SB 62, 2021 bill amending Labor Code §§ 1174.1, 2670, 2671, 2673, 2673.1, and 2675.5 and adding Labor Code § 2673.2. Labor Code § 2673.1(a) makes “a garment manufacturer, contractor, or brand guarantor” jointly and severally liable for unpaid compensation, attorney fees, and civil penalties owed to workers down the supply chain. See also Lab. Code § 2671(d) (defining various terms). 493 Martinez v. Coombs, 49 Cal. 4th 35 (2010). 494 Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 207 Cal. App. 4th 385 (2012) (reversing a summary judgment that the trial court had granted for Domino’s, the franchisor), review granted, No. S204543 (Cal. Oct 10, 2012). 495 Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 60 Cal. 4th 474 (2014).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4