BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 588 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 22, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Roger Hernández, Chair AB 588 (Grove) - As Introduced February 24, 2015 SUBJECT: Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 SUMMARY: Amends the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) to allow an employer to cure an alleged violation of law related to itemized wage statements before a civil action may be brought by an aggrieved employee and seeks to delete obsolete cross-references. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown COMMENTS: The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) was enacted pursuant to SB 796 (Dunn), Chapter # 906, Statutes of 2003, and went into effect on January 1, 2004. The Legislative findings accompanying the enactment of SB 796 stated the following: AB 588 Page 2 "Adequate financing of essential labor law enforcement functions is necessary to achieve maximum compliance with state labor laws in the underground economy and to ensure an effective disincentive for employers to engage in unlawful and anticompetitive business practices. Although innovative labor law education programs and self-policing efforts by industry watchdog groups may have some success in educating some employers about their obligations under state labor laws, in other cases the only meaningful deterrent to unlawful conduct is the vigorous assessment and collection of civil penalties as provided in the Labor Code. Staffing levels for state labor law enforcement agencies have, in general, declined over the last decade and are likely to fail to keep up with the growth of the labor market in the future. It is therefore in the public interest to provide that civil penalties for violations of the Labor Code may also be assessed and collected by aggrieved employees acting as private attorneys general, while also ensuring that state labor law enforcement agencies' enforcement actions have primacy over any private enforcement efforts undertaken pursuant to this act." The co-sponsors of SB 796, the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, argued that the bill would address inadequacies in labor law enforcement in two major ways. First, the bill assigned civil fine amounts to the large number of Labor Code provisions, which previously carried prohibitions or criminal fines, but not civil AB 588 Page 3 penalties. Second, it authorized the filing of civil actions to recover existing and new civil penalties by aggrieved workers acting as private attorneys general. The PAGA was significantly amended by SB 1809 (Dunn), Chapter # 221, Statutes of 2004. SB 1809 significantly amended the provisions of the PAGA by enacting specified procedural and administrative requirements that must be met prior to bringing a private action to recover civil penalties. Moreover, SB 1809 provided that no action shall be brought for a posting, notice, agency reporting, or filing requirement, except as specified. The provisions of SB 1809 also expanded judicial review of PAGA claims by requiring courts to review and approve any penalties sought as part of a proposed settlement agreement, and those portions of settlements concerning violations of health and safety laws. In addition, courts were authorized to award a lesser amount if to do so otherwise would result in an award that is unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory. Finally, SB 1809 appropriated $150,000 from the General Fund to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) for the purposes of implementing its provisions, and changed the prior penalty formula to provide that 75 percent of most civil penalties recovered pursuant to PAGA shall go to the LWDA for labor law enforcement and education. Existing Procedural Requirements Under PAGA As discussed above, SB 1809 significantly amended the provisions of the PAGA by enacting specified procedural and administrative AB 588 Page 4 requirements that must be met prior to bringing a private action to recover civil penalties. SB 1809 essentially enacted three different procedural requirements depending on the type of violation. "Serious" Labor Code Violations SB 1809 established a new procedure that an aggrieved employee must follow prior to bringing a civil action to recover penalties for enumerated, serious Labor Code violations (including, but not limited to, violations of wage and hour, overtime, child labor, agricultural, entertainment and garment industry labor laws, and public works laws). First, the aggrieved employee must provide written notice of the violation to the LWDA and to the employer. The LWDA has 30 days to decide if it will investigate the violation. If the LWDA decides to investigate the alleged violation, it must notify the employer and the aggrieved employee within 33 days. Within 120 days of that decision, the Labor Agency may investigate the alleged violation and issue any appropriate citation. If the LWDA fails to act, the aggrieved employee may pursue a civil action under PAGA. Notice and Cure Provisions for Other Labor Code Violations SB 1809 also established specified "notice and cure" provisions for those Labor Code violations not enumerated as "serious" above, nor subject to the Cal-OSHA provisions specified below. For these violations, the following procedural requirements apply: First, the aggrieved employee must give written notice to the LWDA and the employer of the alleged violation. The employer may cure the alleged violation within 33 days and give written AB 588 Page 5 notice to the employee and the LWDA if the alleged violation is cured. If the alleged violation is cured, no civil action pursuant to PAGA may commence. If the alleged violation is not cured within the 33-day period, the aggrieved employee may commence a civil action pursuant to PAGA. For the aggrieved employee to dispute that the alleged violation has been cured, the employee must provide written notice to the employer and the LWDA. Within 17 days the LWDA must review the actions of the employer and provide written notice of whether the alleged violation has been cured. If the LWDA determines that the alleged violation has not been cured or if the agency fails to provide timely or any notification, the aggrieved employee may proceed with a civil action pursuant to PAGA. If the agency has determined that the alleged violation has been cured, but the employee still disagrees, the employee may appeal that determination to the superior court. No employer may avail himself or herself of the "notice and cure" provisions more than three times in a 12-month period for the same violation or violations contained in the notice, regardless of the location of the worksite. Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA) Violations Finally, SB 1809 established a new procedure that an aggrieved employee must follow prior to initiating a civil action to recover penalties for violations of Labor Code provisions pertaining to occupational safety and health (Cal-OSHA), other than sections that are specifically enumerated as serious violations. First, the aggrieved employee must give written notice to the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and the employer of the AB 588 Page 6 alleged violation. DOSH must inspect or investigate the alleged violation pursuant to existing provisions of law. If DOSH issues a citation, no civil action pursuant to PAGA may commence. If, by the end of the period for inspection or investigation, DOSH fails to issue a citation and the employee disputes that decision, the employee may challenge the decision in the superior court. If the court finds that DOSH should have issued a citation and orders DOSH to issue a citation, then no civil action pursuant to PAGA may commence. If DOSH fails to inspect or investigate the alleged violation within the period specified in existing law, the "notice and cure" provisions outlined above apply to the determination of the alleged violation. SB 1809 also required superior court review of any proposed settlement of alleged safety in employment violations to ensure that they are at least as effective as the protections or remedies provided in federal and state law. Existing Labor Code 226 - Itemized Wage Statements Labor Code Section 226 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 the following information: (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee (except salaried and exempt employees), (3) piece rate unite earned and the applicable piece rate (if the employee is paid on a piece rate basis), (4) all deductions, (5) net wages earned, (6) inclusive dates of the pay period, (7) the name of the employee and the last four digits of his or her social security number or employee identification number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer and, if the employer is a farm labor contractor, the name and address of the legal entity that secured the services of the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours the employee worked at each hourly rate. Labor Code Section 226(e) provides that an employee "suffering injury" as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an AB 588 Page 7 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. Recent Concerns Over "Suffering Injury" and SB 1255 (Wright) from 2012 As discussed above, 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 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. Therefore, in 2012 the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF) sponsored SB 1255 (Wright) in an attempt to legislate a compromise by clearly delineating which types of "true" violations will constitute "suffering injury." As part of the legislative history of SB 1255, CRLAF submitted an analysis of over 300 published and unpublished decisions that they contended split about evenly between an interpretation favorable to employees and one favorable to employers. In some cases, courts required employees to show that they did not receive pay owed to them in order to prove that they suffered injury. In other cases, courts held that failure to receive an itemized statement at all or failure to receive specified or accurate information on the statement which results in confusion for the employee was sufficient to establish "suffering injury." Therefore, SB 1255 sought to provide clarity by establishing a statutory definition of what constitutes "suffering injury" for AB 588 Page 8 purposes of recovering damages in a lawsuit alleging a violation of Labor Code section 226 pursuant to subdivision (e). CRLAF argued that this would 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). SB 1255 was signed by Governor Brown and went into effect on January 1, 2013. Changes Proposed by This Bill Related to PAGA Claims for Labor Code 226 Claims Under current law, alleged violations of Labor Code Section 226 are enumerated as "serious" violations under the first procedural mechanism under PAGA. Therefore, an aggrieved employee must first provide written notice of the violation to the LWDA and to the employer. If the LWDA fails to act, the aggrieved employee may pursue a civil action under PAGA for the alleged Labor Code 226 violation. This bill proposes to delete Labor Code Section 226 from the list of enumerated "serious" violations described above. Therefore, claims for violation of Labor Code 226 would fall under the "notice and cure" provisions of PAGA. Therefore, an employer would be allowed to cure the alleged violation within 33 days of written notice from the employee. If the alleged violation is cured, no civil action pursuant to PAGA may commence. If the alleged violation is not cured within the 33-day period, the aggrieved employee may commence a civil action pursuant to PAGA. Changes Proposed by This Bill Related to PAGA Claims for Advanced-Fee Talent Representation Service The enumerated list of "serious" violations under PAGA also AB 588 Page 9 includes now-obsolete references to provisions of law related to fee-related talent services. AB 1319 (Krekorian) of 2009 repealed those provisions of law and re-enacted (and revised) them in a different portion of the Labor Code, so the prior cross-references are now obsolete. This bill seeks to delete those obsolete cross-references. However, AB 1319 re-enacted those provisions starting at Labor Code Section 1702. Therefore, a better approach would be to substitute the current statutory cross-references in the list of "serious" violations under PAGA. Arguments in Support A broad coalition of supporters argue this bill deletes Labor Code Section 226 from Section 2699.5 that allows an employee the immediate right to sue under PAGA, and instead require the employee to allow the employer 33 days to cure the alleged violation before a civil action is filed. Labor Code Section 226 is one area in which employers have seen an increase in frivolous litigation regarding technical violations that do not harm or injure the employee. An example of this frivolous litigation is set forth in Elliot v. Spherion Pacific Work, LLC, 572 F.Supp.2d 1169 (2008), in which an employee alleged a cause of action under Labor Code Section 226 because the employer used a truncated name on the wage statement. Specifically, the employer's name on the wage statement was "Spherion Pacific Work, LLC," instead of Spherion's legal name, "Spherion Pacific Workforce, LLC." The employee did not allege that this truncated version of the employer's name misled her, confused her, or caused her any injury. Although the court ultimately dismissed this cause of action through summary judgment, the employer incurred unnecessary legal costs and attorney's fees to have the cause of action dismissed. Finally they argue this bill would help curb this type of frivolous litigation under PAGA with regard to Labor Code Section 226 by allowing an employer 33 days to cure any alleged violation. If the employer cannot cure the violation, then the AB 588 Page 10 employee would still be able file a civil action and obtain any unpaid wages, penalties and attorney's fees. This reform would provide the appropriate balance of allowing an employer to correct unintentional errors, while still protecting the employee's ability to obtain information regarding how his/her wages were calculated during the pay period. Arguments in Opposition The California Employment Lawyers Association argues against this bill stating "this bill would create a dangerous precedent by relegating an important Labor Code workplace protection to a status of lesser importance and reduced enforceability. By removing Labor Code Section 226 from the list of provisions for which PAGA penalties are meaningfully enforceable, the bill effectively characterizes the requirements of LC Section 226(a) as "trivial"- indeed, it singles out LaborCode § 226 as the wage and hour provision of the Labor Code for which employers may insulate themselves from liability for penalties under PAGA. Yet, ironically, § 226 contains some of the most basic employment obligations of employers in this State, as well as some of the plainest and most straightforward requirements in the Labor Code. The harm done by an employer that fails to issue accurate and complete wage statements cannot be overstated. Not only do employees rely on the contents of their wage statements to ensure that they are being paid all wages they have earned for all hours they have worked, but those statements are critically important in DLSE enforcement actions as well. Without accurate and complete employee wage statements, the burden on enforcement agencies and the courts will escalate substantially. That, in turn, will degrade enforcement and increase the State's enforcement costs. The information required to prepare wage statements correctly is entirely within the employer's control; the information is important to employees and the burden of full compliance is not onerous; and the creation of accurate pay records is essential to any AB 588 Page 11 retrospective review conducted by any court, employee, employer, or government enforcement authority or taxing agency." Additionally, they contend, "the fact that the Legislature has long understood the importance of this information for employees is emphasized by the fact that one remedy for a violation of this section is the imposition of actual damages and/or statutory penalties. The insinuation that this is a "victimless" violation does not withstand scrutiny. As California's Court of Appeal explained: Additionally, this lawsuit, and the difficulty and expense Plaintiffs have encountered in attempting to reconstruct time and pay records, is further evidence of the injury suffered as a result of [the employer's] wage statements. Plaintiffs' ability to calculate unpaid and miscalculated overtime is complicated by the missing information required by Section 226(a). The purpose of the requirement is that employees need not engage in the discovery and mathematical computations to analyze the very information that California law requires.(citation omitted.) Jaimez v. DAIOHS USA, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1306." REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support Acclamation Insurance Management Services African-American Farmers of California AB 588 Page 12 Air Conditioning Trade Association Allied Managed Care Associated Builders and Contractors - San Diego Chapter Associated Builders and Contractors of California California Apartment Association California Association of Bed and Breakfast Inns California Bankers Association California Business Properties Association California Chamber of Commerce California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse California Cotton Ginners Association California Cotton Growers Association California Farm Bureau Federation California Fence Contractors California Fresh Fruit Association California Hotel and Lodging Association California League of Food Processors California Lodging Industry Association California Manufacturers and Technology Association California Newspaper Publishers Association California Pool and Spa Association California Restaurant Association California Retailers Association California Trucking Association CALPI, Inc. Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce Civil Justice Association of California Culver City Chamber of Commerce Far West Equipment Dealers Association Flasher Barricade Association Fullerton Chamber of Commerce Gateway Chambers Alliance Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce National Federation of Independent Business National Hmong American Farmers Nisei Farmers League Orange County Business Council Paramount Farming Company Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California AB 588 Page 13 Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce Visitor & Convention Bureau Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce Southwest California Legislative Council Western Agricultural Processors Association Western Electrical Contractors Association Western Growers Association Western Plant Health Association Opposition California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union California Conference of Machinists California Employment Lawyers Association California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation California Teamsters Public Affairs Council Consumer Attorneys of California AB 588 Page 14 Engineers & Scientists of California International Longshore & Warehouse Union Professional & Technical Engineers UNITE-HERE Utility Workers Union of America Analysis Prepared by:Lorie Alvarez / Benjamin Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091