The Court of Appeal specifies what types of allegations can be dealt with under section 2699.3 – Litigation, mediation and arbitration

[ad_1]

United States: Court of Appeal clarifies what types of allegations can be dealt with under section 2699.3

08 November 2021

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

To print this article, simply register or connect to Mondaq.com.

On October 7, 2021, the California Court of Appeals (4th District) rendered its decision in Quinonez v. Payless 4 Plumbing, Inc., Case # E074467, clarifying which allegations in a notification letter to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) trigger a right to cure under Section 2699.3 (c) of the Labor Code. The corrective provisions in section 2699.3 (c) provide a limited period of time for an employer to correct any alleged violation and explain in writing the corrective actions it has taken. When the employer does so, it triggers additional obligations for the complainant employee before a civil suit can be brought. In particular, the employee must respond to the employer’s notice of remedy if he disputes that the alleged violations have been corrected, and the LWDA must review the alleged remedy. However, several provisions of the Labor Code, in the event of an alleged violation, do not offer the possibility of remedy under section 2699.3 (c). These provisions of the Labor Code are identified in article 2699.5.

Quinonez’s question was relatively straightforward: If an LWDA notice cites a Labor Code provision not listed in section 2699.5, does that automatically give the employer the opportunity to remedy under section 2699.3? (vs) ? The plaintiff’s LWDA notice alleged that the employer had violated the provisions of the Labor Code concerning meal and rest breaks, minimum wages and overtime, payroll records and wage declarations and reimbursement of professional expenses. , all of which are listed in section 2699.5. However, the opinion also identified other provisions of the Labor Code, such as Article 200 (which defines the terms “wages” and “work”) and Article 558 (which lists certain sanctions). The employer sent the claimant a notice of adjustment, believing that because these items are not listed in section 2699.5, they had the option of remedying them under section 2699.3 (c). The complainant never responded. Thus, the employer filed a complaint, arguing that by failing to respond, the plaintiff had not exhausted the administrative remedies prescribed by section 2699.3 (c) (3). The court of first instance accepted and supported the opposition.

The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that this was a question of “fairly straightforward” statutory interpretation. Brief op. to 5-6. The Court observed that Article 2699.5 provides that “the alleged violation[s]”Sections of the Labor Code that it lists cannot be corrected, and concluded that only those sections of the Labor Code that the employee claims to have been violated count in determining whether there is a right to redress. Id. (Likewise, the remedial provisions of Section 2699.3 (c) expressly apply to an alleged “violation of any provision other than those listed in Section 2699.5.[.]”) The articles of the Labor Code identified by the opponent only set out definitions or remedies, but did not” constitute the basis for [the] cause of action. “Id. at 6.

While non-binding, Quinonez confirms that sections 2699.3 (c) and 2699.5 mean what they say: if an employer is alleged to have violated a section of the Labor Code that is listed in section 2699.5, the Attorneys General Act private (PAGA) does not provide for any right to cure. It does not matter whether the letter from the LWDA cites other statutory provisions.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Mold claims: back to the future?

Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP

Friends: the restart. The prequel to the Sopranos. Britney Spears. The pop culture of the early 2000s is back. Is mold litigation, which began around the same time, also making a comeback? …

Are Hippos Legally Persons? In fact, not so much

Duane Morris LLP

In recent days, the internet has been stirred with reports that a US court has declared infamous drug lord Pablo Escobar’s hippos to be “people.” Some examples:

[ad_2]