Herrera v. Doctors Med. Ctr. of Modesto, Inc.

Decision Date05 August 2021
Docket NumberF080963
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties Christine HERRERA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO, INC., Defendant and Appellant.

Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Michael S. Turner and E. Sean McLoughlin, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Appellant.

Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Michael D. Singer, San Diego, Rosemary C. Khoury; United Employees Law Group and Walter L. Haines, Los Angeles, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

FRANSON, Acting P.J. Defendant Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc., appeals from an order denying its petition to compel arbitration of Labor Code claims pursued by former employees. The former employees contend their lawsuit is limited to recovering civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq. )1 and their arbitration agreements cannot be enforced to compel arbitration of the PAGA representative claims.

We again interpret the California Supreme Court's decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 327 P.3d 129 ( Iskanian ) to mean "that PAGA representative claims for civil penalties are not subject to arbitration" under a predispute arbitration agreement. ( Esparza v. KS Industries, L.P. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1228, 1234, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 594 ( Esparza ).) The PAGA claims alleged in the former employees' complaint are owned by the state and are being pursued by the former employees as the state's agent or proxy. ( ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, 185, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 228, 448 P.3d 239 ( ZB, N.A. ).) The arbitration agreements in question are not enforceable as to the PAGA claims because the state was not a party to, and did not ratify, any of those agreements. Also, after the former employees became representatives of the state, they did not agree to arbitrate the PAGA claims. Consequently, under the rule of California law recognized in Esparza and many other decisions of the Court of Appeal, the PAGA claims cannot be forced into arbitration based on agreements made by the former employees before they became authorized representatives of the state. The trial court correctly applied this rule of law.

Defendant's argument that arbitration is compelled by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA; 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. ) and federal preemption fails for similar reasons. In Iskanian , our Supreme Court addressed the scope of the FAA and concluded that "a PAGA claim lies outside the FAA's coverage because it is not a dispute between an employer and an employee arising out of their contractual relationship." ( Iskanian, supra , 59 Cal.4th at p. 386, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 327 P.3d 129.) Based on this precedent, we conclude the FAA does not reach the PAGA claims alleged in this case and, therefore, federal law does not preempt the rule of California law stating PAGA claims are subject to arbitration only if the state, or the state's authorized representative, consents to arbitration.

We therefore affirm the order denying the petition to compel arbitration.

FACTS

Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc., (defendant) is a California corporation that owns and operates Doctors Medical Center in Modesto, an acute care hospital. Defendant is a subsidiary of Tenet Healthcare Corporation, which owns and operates health care facilities in California, Texas, Louisiana and other states. Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce because, among other things, it purchases equipment, materials and supplies from out-of-state manufacturers and suppliers.

Plaintiff Christine Herrera was employed by defendant in 1986 and worked there until 2008. In 2010, she returned and worked on defendant's staff as a registered nurse and a member of a union, the California Nurses Association. In 2011, Herrera became a shift manager, which is a nonunion position. She remained in that position until her resignation in June 2018.

Plaintiff Geri Rothstein worked for defendant from 1998 to 2006. In 2010, she returned and worked on defendant's staff as a registered nurse. Rothstein also was a member of the California Nurses Association. In July 2014, Rothstein was promoted to shift manager, a nonunion position. As a result, she stopped paying union dues and was no longer a member of any union. Rothstein served as a shift manager until her resignation in July 2018.

Collective Bargaining Agreement

Since 2006, registered nurses employed by defendant have been represented by the California Nurses Association, which negotiated a series of collective bargaining agreements (CBA) with defendant. As a result, defendant's registered nurses were not "at will" employees, but were protected by CBA provisions that limited defendant's right to discipline or discharge registered nurses.

In 2010, when plaintiffs returned to work for defendant, a three-year CBA covering January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2010, was in place. Article 9 of that CBA included a mandatory grievance and arbitration procedure for any dispute involving the interpretation, meaning or application of any of the CBA's provisions. Paragraph E of article 9 of the CBA allowed individual registered nurses to voluntarily agree to arbitrate "any dispute not otherwise arbitrable under the" CBA using "the Tenet Fair Treatment Process (‘FTP’)." It also stated: "No retaliation or adverse action may be taken against anyone who exercises the option not to sign the FTP." The grievance and arbitration provisions were also included in article 9 of the CBA covering January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2018.

Individual Agreements

In 2010, when plaintiffs returned to work for defendant, they signed a one-page "ACKNOWLEDGEMENT" stating they (1) had received information about how to access an electronic copy of the defendant's employee handbook; (2) had received a hard copy of the FTP; (3) voluntarily agreed to use the FTP by submitting to final and binding arbitration "any and all claims and disputes that are related in any way to my employment or the termination of my employment"; (4) agreed the arbitration would be conducted under the Federal Arbitration Act and the procedural rules of the American Arbitration Association; and (5) acknowledged the agreement to arbitrate "may not be modified or rescinded except in writing by both me and the Company."

A document named "Open Door Policy and Fair Treatment Process" states "[t]he FTP applies to all employees, regardless of length of service or status, and covers all disputes relating to or arising out of an employee's employment with the Company or the termination of employment. The only disputes or claims not covered by the FTP are those listed in the ‘Exclusions and Restrictions’ section below." It also advises employees that the "mutual agreement to arbitrate claims means that both the employee and the Company are bound to use the FTP process as the only means of resolving employment-related disputes, and thereby agree to forego any right they each may have had to a jury trial on issues covered by the FTP." The document also describes the five steps that comprise the FTP. The description of the fifth step—final and binding arbitration—addresses class, representative or group action, stating:

"The employee understands and agrees that to the extent permitted by law, his or her claim will not be joined with any claim or dispute of another employee in a class, collective, representative or group action. Arbitration under the Fair Treatment Process is limited to individual disputes, claims or controversies that a court of law would be authorized or have jurisdiction over to grant relief." (Italics added.)

Whether the PAGA representative claims alleged by plaintiffs are subject to this limitation on arbitration was not addressed in the appellate briefing. We did not seek supplemental briefing of the issue (Gov. Code, § 68061) because there are other grounds for affirming the trial court's denial of arbitration.

PAGA Notice

On May 17, 2019, counsel for plaintiffs mailed a written notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and defendant pursuant to section 2699.3. The notice stated plaintiffs were former employees of defendant aggrieved by defendant's Labor Code violations. The notice alleged defendant "failed to pay all wages, including premium wages for overtime hours worked; failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest breaks; failed to adequately inform Claimants of their right to off-duty meal and rest periods; failed to reimburse Claimants and other aggrieved employees for business expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties for [defendant]; failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failed to pay all wages due during and upon separation of employment."

In response to the PAGA notice, defendant did not provide a notice of cure of the alleged violations. The Labor and Workforce Development Agency did not provide a notice of investigation within 65 days after the PAGA notice was mailed. Pursuant to section 2699.3, subdivision (a)(2)(A), when the agency does not provide notice of its intent to investigate within the 65-day period, "the aggrieved employee may commence a civil action pursuant to Section 2699." Section 2699, subdivision (a) provides any civil penalty under the Labor Code collectable by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency "may, as an alternative, be recovered through a civil action brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees pursuant to the procedures specified in Section 2699.3."

PROCEEDINGS

In August 2019, plaintiffs filed a "REPRESENTATIVE ACTION COMPLAINT" against defendant seeking civil penalties under PAGA for violations of Labor Code provisions governing wages, meal periods, rest periods, reimbursement of business expenses, and accurate wage statements. In October 2019, venue was transferred from Orange County to ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Williams v. Rgis, LLC
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 2021
    ...244 Cal.Rptr.3d 177.)Following Correia , other published cases have agreed with its holding: Herrera v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 538, 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 ; Winns v. Postmates Inc. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 803, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 460 ; Rosales v. Uber Technolog......
  • Wing v. Chico Healthcare & Wellness Ctr., LP
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 28, 2022
    ...v. RGIS, LLC (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 445, 451–454, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 435 ( Williams ); Herrera v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 538, 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 ( Herrera ); Winns v. Postmates Inc. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 803, 812–813, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 460 ; Olson v. Lyft, ......
  • Lewis v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 5, 2022
    ...PAGA before a dispute arises and, as such, cannot act as an agent for the State at that time. (See, e.g., Herrera, supra , 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 550, fn. 3, 282 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 ; Collie, supra , 52 Cal.App.5th at pp. 481–482, 266 Cal.Rptr.3d 145.) Under this reasoning, only once an employee ......
  • Williams v. RGIS, LLC
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 2021
    ...620.) Following Correia, other published cases have agreed with its holding: Herrera v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 538; Winns v. Postmates Inc. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 803; Rosales v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 937; Contreras v. Superior C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT