The California Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that for purposes of Labor Code provisions requiring payment of wages immediately upon “discharge”—and imposing waiting time penalties for delays—the term “discharge” doesn’t just mean getting fired or laid off; it also includes when an employer releases an employee after completion of the specific job assignment or time duration for which the employee was hired.
The case involved model Amanza Smith, who was hired by L’Oreal USA, Inc., for a one-day show. After Smith completed her one-day stint, the company waited over two months to pay her the agreed upon rate of $500.
Join us this fall in San Francisco for the California Employment Law Update conference, a 3-day event that will teach you everything you need to know about new laws and regulations, and your compliance obligations, for the year ahead—it’s one-stop shopping at its best.
Smith sued, claiming that under Labor Code section 201—which requires an employer that “discharges” an employee to immediately pay the wages earned—L’Oreal had to pay her immediately upon the completion of her one-day assignment. Smith also sought damages under Labor Code section 203, which imposes waiting time penalties when an employer willfully fails to pay a discharged employee in a timely manner.
L’Oreal countered that the requirements of sections 201 and 203 weren’t triggered because Smith wasn’t discharged. Rather, L’Oreal asserted, Smith’s one-day, fixed term of employment merely ended.
But last week, the California Supreme Court took the employee’s side, ruling that these Labor Code provisions apply when an employee is released following the completion of a specific assignment or duration of time for which the employee was hired.
We’ll have more on this ruling and the implications for employers’ pay practices in the August issue of the California Employer Advisor.
Additional Resources: