Delayed wages entitle employees to additional pay

JANIS McLean worked for the State of California as a deputy attorney general until she retired from service in 2010. She did not receive her final wages on her last day of employment or within 72 hours of that date. The correct amount of her wages for unused leave and vacation time were not transferred into her supplemental retirement plan within 45 days of the last day of her employment, as she lawfully requested. She did not receive wages that she had lawfully elected to defer to 2011 by February 1, 2011.
Ms. McLean sued the State, claiming failure to make prompt payments required by law. The lawsuit was on behalf of Ms. McLean and all employees employed by the state who resigned or retired from employment between 2010 and 2011, and who did not receive prompt payment of wages as required by law.
Under California law, “If an employee  . . . quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter” or immediately at the time of resignation if the employee had given 72 hours’ notice of intent to resign The law further adds: “If an employer willfully fails to pay . . . any wages of an employee who is discharged or who quits, the wages of the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date” for up to 30 days.
The employer asked the court to dismiss the case stating that Ms. McLean had no basis for her claim for penalties because she retired, rather than “quit.” The employer argued that the law applied only to an employee who quits, and, by retiring, McLean did not quit. The trial court agreed with the employer and dismissed the case. Ms. Mclean appealed.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the employee, ruling that the requirements applying to employees who quit also apply to employees who quit to retire. The plain meaning of the term “quits,” includes an employee who “retires.” The terms “quits” and “retires” both refer to a voluntary separation from service and an employee must quit before she can retire.
The court did not accept the employer’s argument that the term “quit” in this case must be understood in the context of civil service employment because McLean and the members of the class she purports to represent are civil service employees. The employer argued that in the civil service context, a “quit” is different from a “retirement.” The court stated that while this case involves civil service employees, the law generally applies to all employees both in the public and private sector. The meaning of the word “quits” is the same for both employees in the public and private sector. The Appellate Court, thus, reversed the dismissal.
Employees who look forward to a peaceful retirement after years of diligent service to their employers, certainly don’t expect to be involved in a lawsuit to enforce their rights. However, if they think their rights have been violated prior to or during a separation from their employment, it would be smart for them to consult with a knowledgeable and experienced employment attorney to discuss their options.

***

The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr. welcomes inquiries about this topic. All inquiries are confidential and at no-cost.  Atty. Sayas’ Law Office is located at 500 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 980, Glendale, CA 91203. You can contact the office at (818) 291-0088 or visit  www.joesayaslaw.com. 

***

C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is trial attorney who has obtained several million dollar recoveries for his clients against employers and insurance companies. He has been selected as a Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, featured in the cover of Los Angeles Daily Journal’s Verdicts and Settlements, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum.