BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1255
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1255 (Wright)
As Amended May 15, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :25-12
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 5-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Swanson, Ammiano, Allen, | | |
| |Furutani, Yamada | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Morrell, Gorell | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Provides a statutory definition for what constitutes
"suffering injury" for purposes of recovering damages pursuant
to the itemized wage statement requirements of current law.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that an employee is deemed to "suffer injury" if the
employer fails to provide a wage statement or if the wage
statement fails to contain the name of the employee and last
four digits of his or her social security number or employee
identification number.
2)Provides that an employee is deemed to "suffer injury" if the
employer fails to provide accurate or complete information
regarding the other specified items on the itemized wage
statement and the employee cannot "promptly and easily"
determine from the wage statement alone one or more of the
following:
a) The amount of gross wages and net wages paid to the
employee during the pay period and how those gross and net
wages were determined by reference only to specified
information on the itemized wage statement.
b) Which deductions the employer made from gross wages to
determine the net wages paid to the employee during the pay
period.
SB 1255
Page 2
c) The name and address of the employer and, if a farm
labor contractor, the name and address of the legal entity
that secured the services of the employer during the pay
period.
3)Defines "promptly and easily" to mean a reasonable person
would be able to readily ascertain the information without
reference to other documents or information.
4)Provides that a "knowing and intentional failure" does not
include an isolated and unintentional payroll error due to a
clerical or inadvertent mistake. A hearing officer or fact
finder may consider as a relevant factor whether the employer,
prior to an alleged violation, has adopted and is in
compliance with a set of policies, procedures and practices
that fully comply with the requirement to provide accurate
itemized wage statement.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires every employer, semimonthly or at the time of each
payment of wages, to provide each employee with an accurate
itemized statement, in writing, that contains specified
information.
2)Provides that an employee "suffering injury" as a result of a
knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with
the itemized statement requirements is entitled to recover the
greater of all actual damages or $50 for the initial pay
period in which a violation occurs and $100 per employee for
each violation in a subsequent pay period, not exceeding an
aggregate penalty of $4,000.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : Existing law requires an employer to provide workers
with an accurate itemized wage statement that lists specified
information. Existing law also provides that an employee that
"suffers injury" as a result of an employer's failure to comply
with these requirements is entitled to recover statutory
SB 1255
Page 3
damages. In recent years, courts have grappled with defining
what "suffering injury" means for purposes of these provisions -
different courts have taken vastly different views as to the
meaning of this term.
This bill attempts to legislate a compromise by clearly
delineating which types of "true" violations will constitute
"suffering injury." Supporters contend that this will benefit
both workers (by protecting their fundamental right to receive
accurate information) and employers (by shielding them from
liability over "minor" or "insignificant" inaccuracies on the
wage statements).
The sponsor contends that both employers and employees benefit
from passage of this bill because it ensures that the most
extreme of the state and federal court decisions would no longer
be reliable guides for courts or agencies in interpreting
"suffering injury."
A coalition of employer groups has been negotiating with the
author and the sponsor in an attempt to reach a compromise on
this measure. Unfortunately, an agreement has not yet been
reached and the employer groups therefore oppose this measure in
its current form. These opponents, including the California
Chamber of Commerce argue that the proposed definition of
"suffer injury" in this bill actually reduces the current burden
of proof an employee needs to show in order to obtain this
secondary layer of penalties.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0004162