California Appellate Court Upholds Employee's Calculation of Unpaid Wages
In a decision submitted for official publication on October 14, 2021, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Four upheld a trial court’s decision to enter judgment in favor of a warehouse employee for wage violations claims filed in a lawsuit against his former employer. The trial court awarded the employee $99,394.16, of which $42,792.00 accounted for unpaid overtime wages. The case, Byron Jerry Morales v Factor Surfaces LLC et. al., reaffirms California Labor Code and principles of employment law when calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay.
Case Background
Byron Jerry Morales was a warehouse employee employed by Factor Surfaces LLC. The company hired Morales in 2016. Morales performed a variety of duties, vital to the financial success of the company. Morales cleaned and sanitized the warehouse; he accepted shipments of supplies and equipment; he facilitated and personally made deliveries and pick-up of workplace materials; and, he engaged in customer service relations.
In 2018, the employment relationship between Morales and Factor soured, when Factor terminated Morales’s employment, after Morales asked to be compensated for unpaid overtime wages.
In 2019, Morales filed a lawsuit against his former employer, alleging that the company retaliated against him; the company violated California law by failing to maintain and provide employee records and wage statements; the company failed to pay overtime wages, along with meal and rest break compensation; and, for wrongful termination.
The Trial
At trial, Factor Surfaces LLC and its agents Gregory and Bianca Factor, both testified that the company was unable to produce as evidence Morales’s employment records and wage statements as required by statute. The employment records and wage statements would have indicated, at minimum, Morales’s regular rate of pay along with the number of days and hours he worked.
However, the company claimed that the records went “missing” after a truck owned by the company was stolen from inside a gated community. Supposedly, Morales’s employment records were inside the truck, and although the stolen truck was later recovered, the records were not. The company also testified that Morales was not paid commissions for sales.
Morales, however, was able to provide evidence at trial of his regular rate of pay and wage history with his former employer. Prior to March 9, 2018, Morales worked a full-time schedule at his former employer: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. After March 9, 2018, Morales stated that he worked two (2) or three (3) Saturdays per month. Morales estimated that prior to March 9, 2018, he earned eighteen (18) hours of overtime per week, and after March 9, 2018, he earned approximately fourteen (14) hours of overtime per week because he was not working every Saturday.
Morales testified and provided evidence in the lawsuit that his regular rate of pay in 2016 was $120.00/per day, and that he received a three percent (3%) commissions on sales, which at the end of 2017, was reduced to one and a half percent (1.5%). Without explanation, the company cut Morales’s commission on sales to zero (0%). Also, at some point during Morales’s term of employment the company increased his weekly wages to $150.00/per day.
The Trial Decision
The issues of the trial ultimately boiled down to two questions: (1) which side of the lawsuit, Morales or Factor Surfaces, was more credible or believable based on their testimonies and evidence presented at trial; and (2) whether the trial court should accept Morales’s calculation of his regular rate of pay which included unpaid overtime wages and commission sales?
The trial court’s answer to the first question: Morales. In this case, the employee was found to be more credible than the former employer. Morales established that he performed work for the company that was not properly compensated; and, he provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the amount and extent of work he performed. The burden then shifted to Factor Surfaces to provide accurate and complete employee records and wage statements as required by California law, and the employer could not. The best defense the company could raise was the documents were stolen. With that, the trial court accepted Morales’s calculation of his regular rate of pay while employed by Factor Surfaces. In result, the company filed an appeal challenging the trial court’s acceptance of the employee’s calculation of regular rate of pay.
The Appeal
The Court of Appeal reminds us that – under California Labor Code Sec. 510(4) – overtime pay means “any work performed by an employee in one workday, and work performed in excess of forty (40) hours in any one work week, must be compensated at no less than one-half time times the employee’s regular rate of pay.” Generally, commission workers receive compensation for their commission sales based on a different formula under California law.
However, in this case, because the employee was found to be more credible than the former employer; and the employer failed to provide any records as evidence, the Court of Appeal agreed that the trial court’s acceptance of Morales’s calculation of his regular rate of pay which included unpaid overtime wages and weekly commission sales was proper.
What does this mean?
What this means for employees is that the Court of Appeal is signaling one way to protect job interests against the unfair labor practices of employers. Employees may be able to do this by keeping copies of their wage statements, records of time worked, and work performance. The Court reiterates “where the employer has failed to keep records required by statute, the consequences for such failure should fall on the employer, not the employee. In such a situation, imprecise evidence by the employee can provide a sufficient basis for damages.”
The Court is saying that, even if the employee is not able to provide precise records, if the employee can at least present credible or believable testimony and records of the employee’s wage history and hours worked, it may be sufficient to shift the burden to the employer to prove otherwise; and, if the employer cannot prove otherwise, then it may lead to recovery of commission sales, unpaid overtime wages, and damages in a lawsuit. $25,000.00 of Morales’s award was for emotional distress damages.
Employees should practice saving and cataloguing their pay stubs or weekly paychecks; track missed meal or rest break periods; track duties performed at work and hours worked; and, track the number of wages earned from commission sales. This information could prove to be vital in a lawsuit for damages.
Each case will depend on the specific facts, so it is important to consult with an experienced labor law attorney to assess the specifics of your case to determine if you are owed additional compensation and unpaid overtime wages from your employer.
Free Consultation
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is experienced in all aspects of employment law including wage, labor, meal and rest break violations in the workplace, and have aggressively represented employees in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra.
If you or someone you know suffered employment violations, you may have certain employee rights under state and federal law, and may be entitled to compensation as a part of a class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
FAQs on Productivity Quotas: Are they Legal?
Losing your job is always difficult, particularly when you have worked very hard to be a good employee. Recently, some large corporations have been criticized for having unrealistic expectations regarding employee performance, and have fired employees for failing to be sufficiently productive at work. Here are some frequently asked questions that you may find helpful if you have been fired for failing to meet productivity quotas:
What are productivity quotas?
Productivity quotas are efficiency standards that an employer sets for employees. In other words, the employee is required to meet certain goals at work. Job performance and employee evaluations can be based on whether they meet productivity goals. For example, in a manufacturing plant, the productivity quota could require an employee to assemble "X" number of units per hour. Another example of a productivity quote would be for a delivery person to deliver "X" number of packages per shift. Failure to meet these goals would result in a poor performance evaluation.
Productivity quotes are often unilaterally established by employers, and employees have little or no input on what the productivity quotas are or whether they are realistic. As a result, employees feel tremendous pressure and stress to meet these goals to avoid a bad evaluation and possibly termination.
Are productivity quotas against the law?
No. Unfortunately, for the most part, productivity quotas are not against the law because employers have the right to evaluate the efficiency of employees. However, there are many local, state and federal laws that protect employees and productivity quotas do play a role in the larger question of whether an employee is the victim of an unlawful termination. For example, an employee may have a disability that is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act which requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation which may include an adjustment to any existing productivity quotas.
Also, failing to meet productivity quotes cannot be a pretext for an unlawful termination based on age, race, disability or protected activities including collective bargaining and whistleblowing. Other factors that must be considered with productivity quotas is whether employees are forced to forgo lawful meal and rest breaks in order to meet goals. In other words, employees are entitled to breaks under the law which includes proper compensation for tasks like clocking in or changing in to uniform. Employers are not allowed to penalize employees by setting productivity goals that encourage or require employees to work through breaks or not receive proper compensation. If you have been fired for failing to meet productivity goals, you should consult with an experienced labor attorney to determine whether the termination was lawful.
Can I be fired for failing to meet productivity quotas?
There is no simple answer to whether you can be legally fired for failing to meet productivity goals. Employers should have several ways to evaluate employee performance, and productivity goals should be one of many factors. However, all employment terminations must be lawful. In other words, if the only factor that leads to losing your job is failure to meet productivity quotas, there may be grounds to challenge that decision. For example, federal labor law requires a safe and secure workplace that is free of hazards. Therefore, employers cannot create a situation where the workplace is hazardous due to productivity quotas that would require employees to sacrifice safety in order to reach the goals out of fear of being fired.
California law offers even stronger protections for employees and requires every employer to have an injury and illness prevention program which must include safety training and safe work practices. Moreover, according to California Labor Code section 6401, employers must “adopt and use practices, means, methods, operations, and processes which are reasonably adequate to render such employment and place of employment safe and healthful.” Therefore, unrealistic productivity quotas could threaten the safety and health of employees which employers are required by law to protect. Labor law is complex and whether your have a cause of action depends on the specific facts. You should consult an experienced labor attorney to discuss your case if you have been terminated.
Is California an “at-will” employment state? What does that mean?
Yes. California is an “at-will” state which generally means an employer may fire an employee at any time for any reason without “good cause.” Good cause means a reason for an employer to fire an employee such as insubordination or dishonesty. Therefore, as an at-will employment state, employers in California do not have to have good cause to fire an employee. However, the employee may not be fired for an illegal purpose or in violation of the employee’s rights.
All employees have rights, and employees in California benefit from some of the country’s strongest protections. So, even though California is an at-will state, which seems to allow an employer to fire an employee for any reason whatsoever, including failure to meet productivity quotas, the reality of labor law is much more complex. In most cases, you will need the advice of an experienced labor attorney to assess your case and file a lawsuit if you have been the victim of an unlawful termination.
FREE CONSULTATION
Srourian Law Firm, with locations in Los Angeles, Westwood, Woodland Hills, and Orange County is experienced in all aspects of employment law including termination based on productivity quotas and have aggressively represented employees in Los Angeles, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Orange, Irvine, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Tustin, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Garden Grove, Laguna Niguel, Brea, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo, Yorba Linda, Westminster, Laguna Hills, Cypress, and La Habra.
If you or someone you know suffered employment violations as an employee including termination based on productivity quotas, you may have certain employee rights under state and federal law and may be entitled to overtime wages, meal breaks and rest breaks; as well as compensation as a part of the class action lawsuit. Please contact us to speak with one of our lawyers for a free consultation.
