Sanchez v. Martinez, No. C083268, 2020 WL 5494239 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2020)
Summary: Piece-rate employees who are provided with unpaid rest breaks are entitled to damages in the amount of the minimum wage for actual unpaid time or an additional hour of pay under California Labor Code section 226.7, but they are not entitled to both.
Facts: Plaintiffs in this case were five farm laborers who pruned grape vines at a piece rate. In January 2009, Plaintiffs filed a suit against their former employer based on alleged violations of various labor laws, including a rest-period claim. Following a trial on the merits, the trial court found in favor of the employer on all causes of action. Plaintiffs appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which reversed the trial court’s judgment as to Plaintiffs’ rest-period claim and derivative cause of action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). On remand, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on their rest-break claim and PAGA claim and awarded Plaintiffs $416 in unpaid minimum wages for actual time worked during rest breaks and $17,775 in civil penalties. Plaintiffs again appealed, claiming they were entitled to be paid the minimum wage for the actual time that they took rest breaks without pay (the “Bluford theory of recovery”) and an “additional hour of pay” under California Labor Code section 226.7 (the “226.7 theory of recovery”). The employer cross-appealed, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s damages calculation.
Court’s Decision: The California Court of Appeal affirmed. The court found both of Plaintiffs’ theories of recovery to be legitimate—notably, acknowledging that the plain language of section 226.7 covers claims for unpaid rest periods. However, the court then explained that since Plaintiffs had already recovered the minimum wage for the actual time they took rest breaks without pay, both the rule against double recovery and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal. 4th 1094 (2007), dictated that they were not also entitled to a statutory pay premium equal to one hour of pay under section 226.7. The court ultimately found none of the parties’ claims warranted reversal.
Practical Implications: Employers of piece-rate employees in California face a complicated, and evolving, set of rules regarding their obligation to provide paid rest breaks. This case is an...
