Abdelmuti v. El Centro Reg'l Med. Ctr.

1

FALESTINE ABDELMUTI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EL CENTRO REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant and Respondent.

D081505

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

April 24, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County No ECU002123, L. Brooks Anderholt, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Capstone Law, Ryan H. Wu and Tyler C. Anderson for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &Hampton, Jason W. Kearnaghan and Y. Douglas Yang for Defendant and Respondent.

O'ROURKE, Acting P. J Plaintiff and appellant Falestine Abdelmuti appeals from an order sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer of defendant and respondent El Centro Regional Medical Center (Center) to Abdelmuti's third amended complaint alleging causes of action for unpaid minimum wages in violation of the Labor Code (Lab. Code,^[1] §§ 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198) and violations of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA, § 2698 et seq.). The court ruled Abdelmuti's first cause of action failed because it asserted only a claim of unpaid wages, not a failure to pay minimum wages, and she could not maintain a PAGA claim for penalties as she could not collect such penalties for violations of Labor Code provisions that did not apply to Center. Abdelmuti contends the trial court erred by its ruling because her complaint properly pleaded such claims notwithstanding Center's status as a public entity employer. We conclude Abdelmuti's complaint adequately states the two causes of action. We reverse the judgment and remand with directions set forth below.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In setting out the facts on our review of the court's order sustaining Center's demurrer without leave to amend, we accept as true the material factual allegations from Abdelmuti's operative third amended complaint, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. (Turner v. Victoria (2023) 15 Cal.5th 99, 109; County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1034, 1041.) We may take facts from properly judicially noticed matters. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638.)

Center is a municipal hospital established by the City of El Centro and governed by a board of trustees, which is a public agency. Center employed Abdelmuti as an hourly, nonexempt phlebotomist from approximately June 2020 to April 2021, at Center's El Centro location.^[2]

Though Center was advised about California labor and wage law requirements, it did not pay Abdelmuti all hours she worked because all of those hours were not recorded. Center knew Abdelmuti was entitled to receive minimum wages for all hours she was required to work, and overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day or 40 hours per week. Specifically, Center had a company-wide policy and/or practice of rounding Abdelmuti's hourly clock-in and clock-out times in its timekeeping system to the nearest quarter hour, resulting in its failure to compensate her the then-applicable minimum wage for all hours that she worked, or overtime wages for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day or 40 hours per week. Center had company-wide practices and/or policies of limiting overtime accrual, understaffing, and assigning heavy workloads, leading to its failure to compensate Abdelmuti for her time spent working off the clock, including performing work duties before and after scheduled shifts and undergoing mandatory temperature checks and/or health screenings.

Center maintained and implemented a company-wide policy of requiring all employees to travel to a medical facility on their own time and using their own personal vehicles to undergo mandatory drug testing, tuberculin (TB) testing, and/or physical examinations. Center was in control of scheduling the time period for the testing and/or physical examinations, selecting the provider or facility where the testing and/or physical examinations were to take place, and determining the scope of the testing and/or physical examinations. For example, Center gave Abdelmuti strict instructions to obtain drug testing, TB testing, and a physical examination, and Abdelmuti underwent the testing and examination for Center's benefit. Abdelmuti followed Center's instructions, traveled eight to 10 miles roundtrip (for approximately 20 to 30 minutes total) to and from Center's El Centro medical facility, and spent an additional two to three hours waiting at the medical facility and undergoing the requisite drug testing. Abdelmuti was then required to return to the medical facility the next day, driving another 10 to 15 minutes each way, and spent an additional 60 to 80 minutes undergoing the TB testing and physical examination. Center did not compensate Abdelmuti for the time she spent traveling to and from the medical facilities; undergoing the mandatory drug testing, TB testing, and/or physical examinations; and/or obtaining TB test results.

Center understaffed their locations such that there were too few employees on duty to handle the heavy workloads and provide meal period coverage. It had a practice of failing to adhere to a schedule of meal periods, which caused Abdelmuti to not be relieved of her duties for compliant meal periods, forcing Abdelmuti to work in excess of five hours before taking a meal period and, at times, cutting short or preventing altogether any meal period. Abdelmuti was often required to take her meal periods after working six to seven hours into her shift due to understaffing and the heavy workload. Center's management pressured Abdelmuti to clock out for meal periods and/or would adjust her time records to reflect compliant meal periods, regardless of whether she had received a compliant meal period, in order to strictly limit meal penalties that Center would need to pay. Abdelmuti did not sign valid meal period waivers on days that she was entitled to meal periods and was not relieved of all duties. Center's practice of rounding employee clock-in and clock-out times prevented Abdelmuti from receiving all meal period premiums when she took late and/or shortened meal periods. Center also did not pay all meal period premiums owed to Abdelmuti when compliant meal periods were not provided.

Abdelmuti worked shifts in excess of three and one-half hours, in excess of six hours, and/or in excess of 10 hours without receiving all uninterrupted 10-minute rest periods, and Abdelmuti throughout her employment would miss her rest periods due to Center's policy of assigning heavy workloads and failing to provide sufficient coverage. Center had a practice or policy of not paying rest period premiums owed when rest periods were not authorized and permitted, and as a result Abdelmuti did not receive premium pay for all missed rest periods.

Center did not maintain accurate payroll records for Abdelmuti showing the daily hours she worked and the wages paid as a result of failing to record the off-the-clock hours that she worked.

Abdelmuti's Lawsuit Abdelmuti filed suit against Center in 2021, alleging 11 causes of action for various Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law violations.^[3] She amended her complaint in early 2022, adding a PAGA claim. On the parties' stipulation, Abdelmuti again amended her pleading, limiting her claims to (1) an unpaid minimum wage claim under sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198, and (2) a claim for civil penalties for the Labor Code violations under PAGA.

Center's Demurrers

Center demurred on grounds the causes of action failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted.^[4] More specifically, Center argued Abdelmuti's first cause of action did not actually allege a minimum wage claim, but only that Center failed to pay wages for all hours worked, and Center was statutorily exempt from such a claim. Center argued Abdelmuti's PAGA claim failed because Center was not subject to default civil penalties or some of the Labor Code provisions underlying her claim. The trial court sustained Center's demurrer with leave to amend.

Abdelmuti thereafter filed the operative third amended class action complaint alleging the same two causes of action for unpaid minimum wages and PAGA civil penalties. Abdelmuti generally alleged "[Center] knew or should have known that [she was] entitled to receive at least minimum wages for compensation and that [she was] not receiving at least minimum wages for all hours [she was] required to work and/or were suffered and permitted to do so. In violation of the California Labor Code, [she was] not paid at least minimum wages for work done off[ ]the[ ]clock." She alleged Center knew or should have known it had a duty to compensate her at the minimum wage or higher for all hours worked, but willfully failed to do so, and falsely represented to her that she was properly denied such wages. She alleged Center's rounding policy resulted in its failure to compensate her the applicable minimum wage, as did its policies that led to its failure to compensate her for time working off the clock, including performing work duties before and after shifts, and undergoing mandatory temperature checks and/or health screenings.

Center again demurred on the same grounds, arguing Abdelmuti had not changed the substance of her pleading, but rather omitted select language and inserted legal argument.

Counsel's Arguments

At arguments on the matter, the trial court acknowledged that Abdelmuti had taken the opportunity to amend, and the court was careful to delineate line by line the exact changes Abdelmuti made to her operative pleading from the second amended complaint. Abdelmuti's counsel explained he had added language to state a minimum wage claim under Armenta v. Osmose, Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 314 (...