Courts wrestle with when labor code violation is willful, knowing, or intentional

A case that made it up to the California Supreme Court is back again. Last time around, the supreme court decided meal and rest break penalties were wages. Now the issue is whether the failure to timely pay or report the wage was willful, knowing, or intentional.

NO MEAL FOR YOU!

Spectrum Security Services transports and guards prisoners and detainees who require outside medical attention or have other appointments outside custodial facilities. Gustavo Naranjo was a guard for Spectrum. He was suspended and later fired after leaving his post to take a meal break, in violation of a Spectrum policy that required custodial employees to remain on duty during all meal breaks. Naranjo filed a class action, claiming the practice violated state meal break requirements under the labor code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order.

He sought an additional hour of pay—commonly referred to as ‘premium pay’—for each day on which Spectrum failed to provide employees a legally compliant meal break. He also alleged two labor code violations related to the company’s premium pay obligations—failing to report the premium pay on employees’ wage statements and failing to timely provide the premium pay to employees upon their discharge or resignation.

Security company has no defense to meal break violation

Spectrum first argued to the court that state labor laws don’t apply to the class members because they were working on federal enclaves and/or performing federal functions, so should be treated as federal employees. The trial court rejected that defense.