California Labor &
Employment Law Blog
Jan 21, 2009

Waiting Time Penalties Cannot Be Recovered Under UCL

Topics: Court Decisions, Wage & Hour Issues

In Pineda v. Bank of America, a California Court of Appeal held that waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203 cannot be recovered as restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff, seeking to represent a class of former employees, alleged that he had not been timely paid his final wages following his resignation of employment. (His last day was May 11 and he was paid on May 15.) He alleged a claim for waiting time penalties under Section 203 and a claim for restitution under the UCL (Business and Professions Code section 17200). The trial court granted Bank of America's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the Labor Code claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that penalties could not be recovered as "restitution" under the UCL.

On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court. In an unpublished portion of the decision, the court held that a one-year statute of limitations applies to a claim for waiting time penalties where there is no underlying claim for unpaid wages. (The court suggested that if there is an underlying claim for unpaid wages, the statute of limitations for both claims is three years.) In this case, the plaintiff did not allege that Bank of America failed to pay him wages; he simply alleged that his final wages were paid 4 days late. Because the plaintiff did nothave an underlying claim for unpaid wages, a one-year statute of limitations applied. The plaintiff filed his action more than one year after his resignation and the Labor Code claim was, therefore, time-barred.

Also in an unpublished portion of the decision, the court interestingly held that leave to amend to substitute a suitable class representative as plaintiff, was properly denied by the trial court. The court held that plaintiff's counsel had several months to find a suitable class plaintiff through discovery and had failed to do so due to a lack of diligence. As a result, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.

Finally, in the published portion of the decision, the court held that the plaintiff's UCL claim was properly dismissed because Section 203 penalties cannot be recovered as restitution under the UCL. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that waiting time penalties are a "vested property interest" that arises upon an employer's failure to timely pay wages.

Although this case was a victory for the employer, it is also a reminder of the litigation that can, and often does, follow when final wages are not paid in accordance with California's strict statutory time requirements. As a reminder, if an employee is involuntarily terminated, final wages (including accrued, unused vacation) must be paid at the time of termination (on the employee's last day). If an employee resigns and gives at least 72 hours notice, final wages must be paid on the employee's last day. If an employee resigns with less than 72 hours notice, final wages must be paid within 72 hours.

About CDF

For over 25 years, CDF has distinguished itself as one of the top employment, labor and immigration firms in California, representing employers in single-plaintiff and class action lawsuits and advising employers on related legal compliance and risk avoidance. We cover the state, with five locations from Sacramento to San Diego.

> visit primary site

About the Editor

Robin Largent has a regular presence in California state and federal courts and has been lead defense counsel and appellate counsel for large and small California employers in litigation (and arbitration) ranging from individual discrimination and harassment claims to complex wage and hour representative and class actions. She also leads the firm’s appellate practice, having substantial experience and success handling appeals, writ petitions, and amicus briefs in both state and federal court on issues such as class certification (particularly in the wage and hour arena), manageability and due process concerns associated with class action trials, exempt/non-exempt misclassification issues, meal and rest break compliance, trade secret/unfair competition matters, and the scope of federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
> Contact   > Full Bio   Call 916.361.0991

CDF Labor Law LLP © 2020

About CDF What We Do Contact Us Attorney Advertising Disclaimer Privacy Policy Cookie Policy