Parsons v. Estenson Logistics, LLC
Decision Date | 28 December 2022 |
Docket Number | C093489 |
Citation | 86 Cal.App.5th 1260,302 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 |
Parties | Robert PARSONS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Diversity Law Group, Larry W. Lee, Los Angeles, Max W. Gavron ; Polaris Law Group and William L. Marder, Hollister, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, Michael J. Nader, Kyle Wende, Sacramento, and Kathleen J. Choi, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent.
Labor Code section 204, subdivision (d), provides that wages for employees who are paid weekly are deemed timely if paid "not more than seven calendar days following the close of the payroll period." What happens if the seventh calendar day falls on a Saturday? Plaintiff and appellant Robert Parsons argues the wages must be paid on that Saturday. Defendant and respondent Estenson Logistics, LLC (Estenson) argues the wages may be paid the following Monday, because Code of Civil Procedure section 12a provides that weekends are holidays, and further provides, "If the last day for the performance of any act provided or required by law to be performed within a specified period of time is a holiday, then that period is hereby extended to and including the next day that is not a holiday." The trial court agreed with Estenson, and granted summary judgment in its favor on a wage and hour claim brought by Parsons. We also agree, and thus affirm.
The relevant facts are both few and undisputed. Parsons works for Estenson, and Estenson pays its employees weekly. Estenson's pay period runs from Sunday through the following Saturday. It pays its employees on the second Monday after the end of the pay period, which is nine calendar days after the end of the pay period. If Monday is a holiday, it pays its employees on Tuesday, which is 10 calendar days after the end of the pay period. So, for example, if the pay period runs from Sunday, January 1 through Saturday, January 7, it would pay its employees on Monday, January 16, and if Monday, January 16 was a holiday, it would pay its employees on Tuesday, January 17.
Parsons contends this practice violates Labor Code section 204, subdivision (d) (hereafter, section 204(d) ), which, as noted above, requires that employees who are paid weekly be paid "not more than seven calendar days following the close of the payroll period." (Italics added.) Parsons thus brought an action under what is known as the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004—or PAGA. ( Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq. ) PAGA allows an employee to bring a civil action against an employer on behalf of himself and other employees to recover civil penalties for violations of the Labor Code.1 ( Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (a).) In this case, Parsons asserted one cause of action against Estenson, alleging its practice of paying its employees on the ninth calendar day following the close of the pay period violates section 204(d).
Estenson filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing its payroll practices did not violate section 204(d).2 Its argument was based almost entirely on a policies and interpretations manual promulgated by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). The DLSE is charged with enforcing most provisions of the Labor Code, ( Lab. Code, § 95 ), and its Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual (hereafter, the DLSE Manual) summarizes how it interprets the Labor Code provisions it is charged with enforcing. The DLSE Manual contains the following explanation of what happens when a payday falls on a weekend or a holiday:
Based on the DLSE Manual and the statutes cited therein, Estenson argued that because the last day to pay its employees always falls on a Saturday, it had the option of paying them on Monday (or on Tuesday if Monday is a holiday).
Parsons argued the DLSE Manual and the statutes cited therein do not override section 204(d) ’s clear directive that employees must be paid no later than seven calendar days after the close of the payroll period.
The trial court agreed with Estenson, noting that although it was not bound by the DLSE Manual, it found the DLSE's interpretation of the relevant Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure sections to be both "persuasive" and "reasonable."4
The trial court thus entered judgment in favor of Estenson, and Parsons timely appealed.
"We review a grant of summary judgment de novo; we must decide independently whether the facts not subject to triable dispute warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law." ( Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1342, 1348, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 32, 71 P.3d 296.) "The proper interpretation of a statute and the application of the statute to undisputed facts are questions of law, which we also review de novo." ( Lazarin v. Superior Court (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1560, 1569, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 596.) We may affirm a ruling granting a motion for summary judgment "if it is correct on any ground, regardless of the trial court's stated reasons." ( Truck Ins. Exchange v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 13, 20, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 179.)
This case involves the interplay between Labor Code section 204 and Code of Civil Procedure section 12a.5
Labor Code section 204 generally requires that wages be paid at least twice a month, as follows: ( Lab. Code, § 204, subd. (a).) For employers, like Estenson, who pay their employees weekly, section 204(d) provides, "The requirements of this section shall be deemed satisfied ... if the wages are paid not more than seven calendar days following the close of the payroll period." ( Lab. Code, § 204, subd. (d), italics added.) Both parties acknowledge this case is governed by section 204(d). Parsons argues that "seven calendar days" means just that, and if the seventh calendar day following the close of the payroll period falls on a Saturday, then wages must be paid on (or before) that Saturday, and paying wages on Monday (or nine calendar days following the close of the payroll period) violates section 204(d). If section 204(d) was the only provision we had to consider, this would be an easy case and we would agree with Parsons. But section 204(d) is not the only provision we have to consider.
Instead, as Estenson notes, Code of Civil Procedure section 12a (hereafter section 12a ) provides, ( Code Civ. Proc., § 12a, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 135, in turn, specifies "judicial holidays," which include Saturdays, Sundays, and most major holidays (i.e., Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's Day, etc.). ( Code Civ. Proc., § 135 [ ]; Gov. Code, § 6700 [designating state holidays].) Section 12a thus...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wage and Hour Case Notes
...WAGES WITHIN SEVEN DAYS FALLS ON WEEKEND, TIME TO PAY EXTENDED TO NEXT DAY THAT IS NOT A HOLIDAY Parsons v. Estenson Logistics, LLC, 86 Cal. App. 5th 1260 (2022)Robert Parsons filed a PAGA-only lawsuit against Estenson alleging a claim for violation of CAL. LAB. CODE § 204, one of Californi......