Photo of Beth V. West

Beth V. West

Subscribe to Beth V. West's Posts

Beth is a Shareholder and Chair of the Firm’s Labor and Employment Group. She is admitted to practice law in California and Washington. She has years of experience assisting employers in all aspects of their employment relationship with their employees. Her practice focuses on counseling and training employers, HR professionals, and managers.

Follow:Read more about Beth V. WestLizabeth's Linkedin Profile

On September 12, 2019, the California Supreme Court issued it decision in ZB, N.A., and Zions Bancorporation v. Superior Court [Lawson, real party in interest] (“Lawson”).  In analyzing whether the Plaintiff’s lawsuit could be compelled to binding arbitration under the arbitration agreement she entered into with her employer, the Supreme Court clarified that under Labor Code section 558, employees are not entitled to recover underpaid wages in a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim.

Before the enactment of the PAGA, section 558 gave the Labor Commissioner authority to issue overtime violation citations for a civil penalty as follows:

(1)        For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.

(2)        For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.

(Labor Code §558, italics added.)

The Lawson case concerned a PAGA action seeking civil penalties under Labor Code section 558.  Lawson brought the representative action against her employer, ZB, N.A. — with whom she agreed to arbitrate all employment claims and forego class arbitration — and its parent company, Zions Bancorporation (collectively, “ZB”).  ZB filed a motion compelling that Lawson  individually arbitrate her “unpaid wages” claim under section 558 because it was not a PAGA civil penalty claim.

The trial court generally agreed, bifurcating Lawson’s action and granting ZB’s motion to compel arbitration of the “unpaid wages” issue.  However, it ordered the issue to arbitration “as a representative action” for the unpaid wages of all aggrieved ZB employees.  ZB responded by filing both an appeal and petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal.  After consolidating the two, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that Code of Civil Procedure section 1294 only gave it appellate jurisdiction over an order dismissing, not granting, a motion to compel arbitration.  However, ZB persuaded the Court of Appeal to issue the writ of mandate, but the court did so on a different ground from the one ZB asserted.  The appellate court concluded that Lawson’s request for “unpaid wages” under section 558 in fact could not be arbitrated at all.  Relying on Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management (Thurman), the Court of Appeal interpreted section 558 to expressly include “underpaid wages” within the scope of its “civil penalty” provision.  In the appellate court’s view, an employee could pursue the entire, indivisible civil penalty through the PAGA action, and that pursuant to Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, her employer could not compel the PAGA claim to arbitration.
Continue Reading The California Supreme Court Clarifies Wages are NOT Part of the “Civil Penalty” under Labor Code Section 558 in a PAGA Action

If you’re like me – and thousands of other attorneys, business owners, and individuals in California – you’ve probably been following the progress of Assembly Bill (“AB”) 5 and holding your breath and wondering with anticipation if Governor Newsom will sign the Bill if it makes it to his desk.  As a reminder, AB 5 is the proposed Bill to codify the decision in Dynamex v. Superior Court so that the very strict “ABC Test” would apply in order to determine the status of a worker as an employee or independent contractor for all provisions of the Labor Code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, except in certain industries and professions.
Continue Reading Will Assembly Bill 5 – and the Answer to the Question of … What Test Applies When Classifying Independent Contractors … Make it to the Governor’s Desk this Year?

California employers covered by the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) and/or the California New Parent Leave Act (“NPLA”) should take note that California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) has issued two new documents that are relevant to the administration of an employee’s leave under these laws.

  1. Family Care and Medical Leave and Pregnancy Disability Leave Notice.

The DFEH’s new Notice provides notice to employees that under the CFRA they can take up to 12 workweeks within a 12 month period for the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of their child or for their own serious health condition, or that of their child, parent, or spouse, if they meet the eligibility requirements for leave under the statute – which are: more than 12 months of service; 1,250 hours in the 12-month period before the date leave begins; and are employed at a worksite where the employer has 50 or more employees at that worksite or within a 75 mile radius.  So far, nothing new right? 
Continue Reading New DFEH Notice and Certification Related to Medical Leaves and Parental Leaves under California Law

 On December 10, 2018, the Fourth Appellate Court decision in Kennedy Donohue v.  AMN Services, LLC  (“AMN”) was certified for publication and it brings good news for California employers who use a neutral rounding timekeeping system. The case involved a class action and PAGA action brought by Ms. Donohue on behalf of nurse recruiters who worked for AMN.  Ms. Donohue claimed that AMN had violated various California wage and hour laws and brought claims for: 1) failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7 and 1197.1; 2)  failure to pay overtime and minimum wage in violation of Labor Code sections 510 and 1197.1; 3) improper wage statements in violation of Labor Code section 226; 4) unreimbursed business expenses in violation of Labor Code section 2802; 5) waiting time penalties in violation of Labor Code sections 201-203; 6) unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; and 7) civil penalties authorized by the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004  (PAGA), under Labor Code section 2698 et seq.
Continue Reading Employer’s Rounding Policy Upheld and Employees Lose Their Class Action & PAGA Lawsuit

Well September 30, 2018 has come and gone.  As my September 19, 2018 article indicated, that was the deadline for Governor Brown to either sign or veto a large number of employment-related bills passed by the California Legislature during the 2017-2018 Term.  Out of the 21 employment-related bills I summarized in my September 19th article, 12 were signed into law, and 9 were vetoed.  Below is a list of the new laws California employers must comply with, as well as a list of vetoed bills where employers dodged the bullet.   To read the full article, please click here.
Continue Reading Which California Employment-Related Bills Were Signed Into Law And Which Ones Did Not Make The Cut?