BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair 2015-2016 Regular Session AB 1506 (Roger Hernández) Version: June 30, 2015 Hearing Date: July 7, 2015 Fiscal: Yes Urgency: No TMW SUBJECT Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 DESCRIPTION This bill, under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), would provide an employer with the right to cure a violation of failing to provide its employees with a wage statement containing the inclusive dates of the pay period and the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. BACKGROUND In 2003, the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) was enacted and authorized employees to file civil actions against employers for civil penalties otherwise assessed or collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. (See SB 796 (Dunn, Chapter 906, Statutes of 2003).) The civil penalties and private right of action established by SB 796 were intended to improve Labor Code enforcement since state labor law enforcement agencies had fallen drastically behind the growth in the labor force and the lack of enforcement was expected to worsen with the state budget crisis. Before PAGA was enacted, many Labor Code violations were punishable only as misdemeanors, with no civil penalty or other sanction attached. Since district attorneys tend to direct their resources to violent crimes and other public priorities, Labor Code violations rarely resulted in criminal investigations and prosecutions. (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, Unfinished Bus. analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1809 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) p. 6.) AB 1506 (Roger Hernández) Page 2 of ? To address business group concerns that PAGA tipped the balance of labor law protection in disproportionate favor of employees by encouraging private attorneys to act as bounty hunters pursuing frivolous violations on behalf of employees, SB 1809 (Dunn, Chapter 221, Statutes of 2004) specified procedural and administrative requirements in order for an aggrieved employee to file a civil action under PAGA to recover civil penalties against an employer, prohibited a PAGA action for posting, notice, agency reporting, and filing requirements, expanded judicial review to proposed PAGA settlement agreements, and authorized the court to award a lesser civil penalty, as specified. PAGA provides a list of serious Labor Code violations that do not provide an employer a right to cure or the ability to fix the violation before the employee can file the civil action for penalties. Labor Code Section 226 violations (dealing with the requirement for an itemized wage statement) are among the list of serious violations that do not qualify an employer for a right to cure under PAGA. Labor Code violations not specifically enumerated are subject to the employee notice and employer's right to cure provisions. Since 1943, the Legislature has recognized the importance of providing an itemized wage statement to employees. In 1976, the Legislature enacted AB 3731 (Lockyer, Chapter 832, Statutes of 1976), which provided employees with specified damages if they could demonstrate they had suffered damages due to the employer's failure to provide wage statement information. AB 3731 was enacted to ensure that employees were adequately informed of compensation received, that the employees were not being short changed their wages, and to assist employees establish eligibility for unemployment insurance. Labor Code Section 226 subsequently has been amended numerous times to require additional information to be itemized on the wage statement, and to provide additional damages to an employee. In 2012, after several court cases resulted in differing standards for whether an employee has suffered injury from an employer's failure to provide required information on a wage statement, SB 1255 (Wright, Chapter 843, Statutes of 2012) provided a statutory definition of what constitutes "suffering injury" for purposes of recovering damages pursuant to the itemized wage statement requirements, including failure by the employer to provide a wage statement or failure to provide AB 1506 (Roger Hernández) Page 3 of ? accurate or complete information regarding the other specified items, as specified. Similarly, this bill seeks to address several court cases that have resulted in large civil penalties resulting from an employer's failure to provide in the itemized wage statement the employer's entire legal name and the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law , the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, authorizes an aggrieved employee to bring a civil action to recover specified civil penalties that would otherwise be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees for the violation of certain provisions affecting employees. (Lab. Code Sec. 2699.) Existing law provides a list of 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) for which an aggrieved employee may commence a civil action for civil penalties that could otherwise be assessed or collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). (Lab. Code Sec. 2699.5.) This list includes a violation for failing to provide an accurate itemized statement in writing detailing specified wage, employer, and employee information. (Id.) Existing law requires an employer to provide, as specified, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee's wages, or separately when wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, as specified, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer and, if the AB 1506 (Roger Hernández) Page 4 of ? employer is a farm labor contractor, as defined, 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 worked at each hourly rate by the employee and, beginning July 1, 2013, if the employer is a temporary services employer as defined in Section 201.3, the rate of pay and the total hours worked for each temporary services assignment. (Lab. Code Sec. 226(a).) Existing law provides that for serious violations, including failure to provide any of the information required to be itemized above, an aggrieved employee may bring a civil action against an employer for civil penalties after the employee gives written notice by certified mail to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the employer of the specific provisions alleged to have been violated, including the facts and theories to support the alleged violation. (Lab. Code Sec. 2699.3(a)(1).) The aggrieved employee may commence a civil action, after a specified waiting period, upon receiving notice from the Agency that it does not intend to investigate the alleged violation, or, if after an investigation, the Agency does not intend to issue a citation. (Lab. Code Sec. 2699.3(a)(2).) Existing law provides that for other specified Labor Code violations or violations not otherwise enumerated as serious violations, an employer is entitled to notice of the violations, as specified, and has a right to cure the violation before the aggrieved employee may bring a civil action against an employer for civil penalties. (Lab. Code Sec. 2699.3(c)(2)(A).) However, an employer may not 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. (Lab. Code Sec. 26933(c)(2)(B).) Existing law defines "cure" to mean that the employer abates each violation alleged by any aggrieved employee, the employer is in compliance with the underlying statutes as specified in the employee's notice, and any aggrieved employee is made whole. This bill would remove from the enumerated list of serious violations an employer's failure to include in the wage statement the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid and the name and address of the legal entity AB 1506 (Roger Hernández) Page 5 of ? that is the employer. This bill would require an aggrieved employee to provide notice of the alleged violations and a right to cure to the employer for failing to detail the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid and the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. This bill would include in the definition of "cure" that a violation of the detailed wage statement that fails to provide the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid and the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer is only considered cured upon a showing that the employer has provided a fully compliant, itemized wage statement to each aggrieved employee for each pay period for the three-year period prior to the date of the employee's notice. This bill would prohibit an employer from availing himself or herself of the notice and right to cure provisions, with respect to allegations of failing to provide a wage statement that details the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid and the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, more than once in a 12-month period for the same violation or violations contained in the notice, regardless of the location of the worksite. This bill would also remove cross-references to repealed statutes. COMMENT 1. Stated need for the bill The author writes: Recently, some employers have reported being sued over very minor or technical violations of the itemized wage statement requirements. These examples include: (1) placing the company logo on the wage statement rather than spelling out the name of the employer; (2) failing to include items like "LLC", "LP", or "Inc." after the name of the employer; and (3) listing the last date of the pay period, but not the beginning date of the pay period (even though the employees are paid every two weeks.) AB 1506 (Roger Hernández) Page 6 of ? Some employers have reported that because the civil penalties can be quite large, even for such minor violations, they have been forced to settle such claims for hundreds of thousands of dollars rather than risk higher penalty awards by litigating the claims further. AB 1506 attempts to strike a balance between protecting the integrity and importance of wage statements and providing some relief to employers from litigation over minor violations. AB 1506 provides that if the alleged violation involves the wage statement's inclusion of (1) the name and address of the employer, or (2) the inclusive dates of the pay period, then the employer shall have an opportunity to "cure" the violation before any [Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA)] claim may be filed. However, the bill specifies that "cure" means that the employer must issue fully compliant wage statements to employees for the entire statutory period (three years). This will ensure that employees are provided with accurate wage statements but will also ensure that employers have an opportunity to remedy the situation prior to facing litigation over minor violations. 2. Removing failure to provide certain wage statement details from list of serious violations under PAGA Existing law requires every employer to furnish each of its employees with an accurate itemized statement, as specified, that shows, among other things, the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid and the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer. (Lab. Code Sec. 226(a)(6), (8).) Existing law provides that all information required to be included in the wage statement is a serious violation subject to PAGA and does not provide an employer the right to cure the violation before the aggrieved employee can sue the employer for civil penalties. (Lab. Code Secs. 2699.3, 2699.5.) Proponents argue that wage statement violations are one area in which employers have seen an increase in frivolous litigation regarding technical violations that do not harm or injure the employee. Proponents cite to Elliot v. Spherion Pacific Work, LLC (2008) 572 F.Supp.2d 1169, as an example of this problem. In Elliot, the plaintiff, a temporary employee, alleged her AB 1506 (Roger Hernández) Page 7 of ? employer failed to pay the employee in a timely manner, failed to pay her for time worked, and issued wage statements that did not include all of the information required by state and federal law, and the complaint included a claim for civil penalties under PAGA. With respect to the wage statements, the plaintiff argued that the employer included a truncated version of the employer's name on the wage statements, which referred to "Spherion Pacific Work, LLC," but the full name of the employer was Spherion Pacific Workforce, LLC. (Id., pp. 1173, 1179.) The court discussed the legislative intent of the wage statement requirement that an employer provide its legal name and address, and noted that "[i]f the legislature had intended to require an employer to show its complete name on wage statements, it would have stated so in this section. Indeed, the specificity required in the remainder of section 226(a) -- requiring, for example, various subcategories of information relating to pay rates, hours worked, and deductions -- demonstrates that, when the legislature drafted this statute, it well knew how to require highly detailed information on wage statements. By contrast, instead of requiring an employer to state its 'complete' or 'registered' name, section 226(a)(8) only requires the employer to state its 'name and address.' Because Defendant was the 'legal entity' that employed Plaintiff, and because Defendant showed its 'name and address,' Defendant complied with section 226(a)(8)." (Id., pp. 1179, 1180.) The Elliot court then discussed whether the plaintiff suffered any injury due to the truncated employer's name on the wage statement and reviewed other cases in which an employer failed to provide the required information on a wage statement. (Id., p. 1181.) The court noted that the injuries to employees in those cases included the possibility of not being paid overtime, employee confusion over whether they received all wages owed them, difficulty and expense involved in reconstructing pay records, and forcing employees to make mathematical computations to analyze whether the wages paid in fact compensated them for all hours worked. (Id.) The Elliot court held that the employee provided no evidence that she suffered injury of any sort due to the employer's use of a slightly truncated name of the wages statements, and the PAGA claim, along with all of the plaintiff's causes of action for labor violations, failed as a matter of law, and the employer's motion for summary judgment of the employee's action was granted. (Id., p. 1181.) Notably, SB 1255 (Wright, Chapter 843, Statutes of 2012) AB 1506 (Roger Hernández) Page 8 of ? attempted to address frivolous wage statement actions by defining what constitutes suffering injury from the employer's failure to provide the required information in a wage statement. However, proponents argue that numerous PAGA lawsuits have been filed for technical violations of wage statements that do not cause any harm to employees. Further, proponents assert that because of the substantial civil penalties under PAGA, PAGA claims are commonly filed by plaintiffs with other claims as a bargaining chip. One example is Willner v. Manpower, Inc. (2014) 35 F.Supp.3d 1116, in which the plaintiff, a temporary employee, alleged the employer failed to pay timely weekly wages under Labor Code Section 201.3(b)(1), failed to furnish accurate wage statements under Labor Code Section 226, and violated the Unfair Competition Law by failing to provide accurate wage statements and to pay timely wages. The plaintiff claimed penalties under PAGA for failure to furnish accurate wage statements and to pay timely wages, and failure to pay timely wages due at separation under Labor Code Sections 201 and 203. With respect to the wage statement violations, the plaintiff alleged that the wage statements failed to contain the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee was paid and failed to state the employer's address. (Id., p. 1128.) The employer argued that the wage statements issued to the plaintiff, as a temporary employee, included every work date for which the plaintiff was paid, and the employer's address appeared on the checks attached to the wage statements and on the front of the envelopes containing the statements. (Id., pp. 1128-1129.) The court, denying the employer's motion for summary judgment, concluded that the evidence established that the wage statements failed to comply with Section 226(a)(6), requiring the inclusive dates of the pay period, and Section 226(a)(8), requiring the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, which satisfied the plaintiff's first element of her claim for damages under Section 226(e). (Id., p. 1129.) Following the court's ruling on the plaintiff's and defendant's motions for summary judgment, the employer entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff, which was reviewed in June of this year by the court as required under PAGA. (Willner v. Manpower, Inc. (2015) U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80697.) The employer settled the class action for $8.75 million, which represented "between 30 and 35 percent of the recovery that the plaintiff class estimated would be likely at trial if Plaintiff were to AB 1506 (Roger Hernández) Page 9 of ? prevail, and included payments to the class, attorneys' fees for $2,625,000 and costs for $33,300; a service award to Plaintiff; PAGA penalties payable to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency in the amount of $65,625.00; a $25,000.00 hold-back fund to cover payments to claimants who were mistakenly omitted from the class list and/or whose eligible paystub count was incorrectly calculated; and $102,000.00 in estimated costs of settlement administration." (Id., p. 4.) In reviewing the settlement agreement, the court noted that risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of the case favored settlement. (Id., p. 9.) On this point, the court stated that "[a]bsent settlement, Class Counsel 'anticipate a vigorous and lengthy challenge to both class certification and the merits of Plaintiff's claims.' [Citations omitted.] The litigation history in this case supports this prediction. Plaintiff's efforts to obtain class certification, establish liability, and present evidence regarding damages and penalties may take years, and any recovery might be further delayed by appellate proceedings. [] This factor favors approval, which offers immediate and certain recovery to class members." (Id., pp. 9-10.) The court also noted that the lawsuit also precipitated the employer's decision to change its wage statements to include its employer address and the pay period beginning date, which would continue to benefit all of the employer's hourly employees in California by enabling them to more easily verify the correct payment of their wages. (Id., p. 11.) Proponents note that the April 16, 2014 , Los Angeles Daily Journal article titled "An Alternative to Employee Class Actions," documents that PAGA lawsuits have increased over 400 percent between 2005 and 2013, given the ease of filing such cases without satisfying class action requirements and the potential financial windfall. Proponents argue that this bill would help curb this type of frivolous litigation under PAGA with regard to only two sections of Labor Code Section 226, specifically paragraphs (a)(6) (requiring the inclusive dates of the pay period) and (8) (employer's legal name and address), by allowing an employer 33 days to cure any alleged violation. Under PAGA, for non-serious labor violations, the employer is entitled to notice of the violations and a right to cure before the employee can file the PAGA action. (Lab. Code Sec. 2699.3(c).) If the employer cannot cure the violation, then the employee would still be able to file a civil action and obtain any unpaid wages, penalties, and attorney's fees. Proponents contend that this bill would provide the appropriate balance of AB 1506 (Roger Hernández) Page 10 of ? allowing an employer to correct unintentional errors without the threat of a multi-million dollar lawsuit that could put the employer out of business, while still protecting the employee's ability to obtain accurate information. 3. Limitations on right to cure The Consumer Attorneys of California raised the concern that this bill would allow employers to violate the wage statement requirements, be given the opportunity to correct the wage statements, correct the wage statements, then violate the law again. To address this concern, the bill was recently amended to limit an employer's right to cure pay statement violations, as specified in this bill, to one time in a 12-month period. Support : Air Conditioning Trade Association; Associated Builders and Contractors of California; Associated Builders and Contractors - San Diego Chapter; Associated General Contractors; Association of California Insurance Companies; Brea Chamber of Commerce; California Ambulance Association; California Apartment Association; California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce; California Association of Bed and Breakfast Inns; California Association of Licensed Security Agencies, Guards and Associations; California Association of Realtors; California Bankers Association; California Business Properties Association; California Business Roundtable; California Chamber of Commerce; California Cotton Ginners Association; California Cotton Growers Association; California Defense Counsel; California Employment Law Council; California Farm Bureau Federation; California Forestry Association; California Fresh Fruit Association; California Grocers Association; California Hotel and Lodging Association; California League of Food Processors; California Manufacturers and Technology Association; California Pool & Spa Association; California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors; California Restaurant Association; California Retailers Association; California State Council of the Society for Human Resource Management; Camarillo Chamber of Commerce; Chambers of Commerce Alliance Ventura & Santa Barbara Counties; Civil Justice Association of California; Computing Technology Industry Association; Family Business Association of California; Fullerton Chamber of Commerce; Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce; Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce; Irvine Chamber of Commerce; Lodi Chamber of Commerce; National Federation of Independent Business; Oxnard Chamber of Commerce; AB 1506 (Roger Hernández) Page 11 of ? Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California; Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce; Sierra Pacific Industries; Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce; Southwest California Legislative Council; Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce; Valley Industry & Commerce Association; Verizon; Western Agriculture Processors Association; Western Electrical Contractors Association; Western Growers Association; Wine Institute HISTORY Source : Author Related Pending Legislation : AB 588 (Grove, 2015) is substantially similar to this bill and would provide an employer with the right to cure a violation of wage statement law requirements before an employee may bring a civil action under PAGA. AB 588 is currently in the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee. Prior Legislation : SB 1255 (Wright, Chapter 843, Statutes of 2012) See Background; Comment 2. AB 1319 (Krekorian, Chapter 286, Statutes of 2009) repealed, revised, and recast provisions of the Labor Code regulating advance-fee talent services cross-referenced in the list of serious violations under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). SB 1809 (Dunn, Chapter 221, Statutes of 2004) See Background. SB 796 (Dunn, Chapter 906, Statutes of 2003) See Background. AB 3731 (Lockyer, Ch. 832, Stats. 1976) See Background. Prior Vote : Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 0) Assembly Floor (Ayes 51, Noes 26) Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 5) Assembly Labor and Employment Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 2) ************** AB 1506 (Roger Hernández) Page 12 of ?