IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Supreme Court of California Jorge E. Navarrete, Clerk and Executive Officer of the Court

Electronically RECEIVED on 12/7/2020 at 12:32:55 PM

Supreme Court of California Jorge E. Navarrete, Clerk and Executive Officer of the Court Electronically FILED on 12/10/2020 by Tao Zhang, Deputy Clerk

S259172

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

______________________

JESSICA FERRA,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

LOEWS HOLLYWOOD HOTEL, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

______________________

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, NO. B283218 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT NO. BC586176

______________________

CONSOLIDATED ANSWER TO BRIEFS OF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT

Service on Attorney General, Attention: Consumer Law Section, and Los Angeles County District Attorney Required by Bus. & Prof. Code, ? 17209 ______________________

BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP RICHARD S. ROSENBERG, State Bar No. 77948 JOHN J. MANIER, State Bar No. 145701 DAVID FISHMAN, State Bar No. 217608 15760 VENTURA BOULEVARD, EIGHTEENTH FLOOR ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436

TELEPHONE: 818-508-3700 | FACSIMILE: 818-506-4827

Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent LOEWS HOLLYWOOD HOTEL, LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 6

LEGAL DISCUSSION ..................................................................... 7

I. CELA AND BET TZEDEK BOTH RELY ON THE ERRONEOUS PROPOSITION THAT "REGULAR RATE," BY ITSELF, IS A TERM OF ART UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW. .................................................. 7

II. CELA MISCONSTRUES THE COURT OF APPEAL'S AND LOEWS'S RESPONSES TO FERRA'S RELIANCE ON DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS OF "PAY" AND "COMPENSATION." ...................... 11

III. CONTRARY TO AMICI'S ARGUMENTS, THE DISTINCT PURPOSES BEHIND BREAK PREMIUMS FURTHER SUPPORT THE COURT OF APPEAL'S HOLDING.................................................................. 15

IV. AMICI'S RELIANCE ON THE CANON OF LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF LABOR STATUTES IS UNAVAILING. ..................................... 19

V. CELA UNPERSUASIVELY RELIES ON STATUTORY AND WAGE ORDER PROVISIONS NOT CITED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. ... 20

VI. CELA'S STATED FEARS OF "EMPLOYER MANIPULATION" AND "UNNECESSARY LITIGATION" ARE UNFOUNDED. .................... 22

VII. CELA FAILS TO PERSUASIVELY REBUT LOEWS'S SHOWING ON RETROACTIVITY. ...................................................................... 24

CONCLUSION............................................................................... 28

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.............................................. 29

2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of Cal. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 542.....................................................................8

Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106................................................ 8, 9, 14, 25

Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004.................................................... 8, 14, 17

Britt v. City of Pomona (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 265 ....................................................... 27

Brum v. MarketSource, Inc. (E.D.Cal., June 19, 2017, No. 2:17-cv-241-JAMEFB) 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 94079 ........................................... 26

Chavez v. Smurfit Kappa North America LLC (C.D.Cal., Oct. 3, 2019, No. 2:18-cv-05106-SVWSK) 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 208570 ............................................ 26

Claxton v. Waters (2004) 34 Cal.4th 367................................................................ 28

Ferguson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1613 .........................................................9

Frausto v. Bank of America, N.A. (N.D.Cal., Aug. 2, 2018, No. 18-cv-01983-MEJ) 2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 130220 ................................................... 27

Futrell v. Payday California, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1419 .................................................... 26

Hoschler v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 258 ...................................................... 27

Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158.............................................................. 15

3

Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1390 .................................................... 10

Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244.................................................12, passim

Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1074................................................................ 19

Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094 ..................................................9, passim

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 444 ........................................................ 28

Small v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 222 ...................................................... 14

Steinhebel v. Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC (2006) 126 Cal.App.4th 696 ...................................................... 11

Studley v. Alliance Healthcare Services (C.D.Cal., July 26, 2012, SACV No. 10-000067CJC) 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 190964 .......................................... 26

Valdez v. Fairway Independent Mortgage Corp. (S.D.Cal., July 26, 2019, No. 18-cv-2748-CABKSC) 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 126013 ......................................... 26

Wasatch Property Management v. Degrate (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1111.............................................................. 11

Wert v. United States Bancorp (S.D.Cal., Dec. 18, 2014, No. 13-cv-3130-BAS) 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 175735 ................................................... 26

Statutes 29 U.S.C. ? 207 ..................................................................................7

Bus. & Prof. Code, ? 17209 ...............................................................1

4

Lab. Code

? 203........................................................................................... 28 ? 218.5........................................................................................ 17 ? 226........................................................................................... 28 ? 226.2........................................................................................ 18 ? 226.7.............................................................................6, passim ? 510................................................................................6, passim ? 512........................................................................................... 21 ? 514............................................................................... 20, 21, 22 ? 515............................................................................... 20, 21, 22 ? 1194......................................................................................... 19 ? 2699, et seq. ............................................................................ 23

Other Authorities

Assembly Bill

No. 60 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) .................................. 9, 13, 20, 21 No. 2509 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) .................................... 9, 10, 21

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8

? 11010 (IWC Wage Order No. 1-2001) ............................. 13, 14 ? 11020 (IWC Wage Order No. 2-2001) ............................. 13, 14 ? 11030 (IWC Wage Order No. 3-2001) ............................. 13, 14 ? 11040 (IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001) ............................. 13, 14 ? 11050 (IWC Wage Order No. 5-2001) ........................7, passim ? 11060 (IWC Wage Order No. 6-2001) ............................. 13, 14 ? 11070 (IWC Wage Order No. 7-2001) ............................. 13, 14 ? 11080 (IWC Wage Order No. 8-2001) ............................. 13, 14 ? 11090 (IWC Wage Order No. 9-2001) ............................. 13, 14 ? 11100 (IWC Wage Order No. 10-2001) ........................... 13, 14 ? 11110 (IWC Wage Order No. 11-2001) ........................... 13, 14 ? 11120 (IWC Wage Order No. 12-2001) ........................... 13, 14 ? 11150 (IWC Wage Order No. 15-2001) ........................... 13, 14 ? 11160 (IWC Wage Order No. 16-2001) ........................... 13, 14 ? 11170 (IWC Wage Order No. 17-2001) ........................... 13, 14

5

INTRODUCTION

The answer brief on the merits of Defendant and Respondent Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC (Loews) demonstrated the correctness of the Court of Appeal's holding that the Legislature never intended the term "regular rate of compensation" in Labor Code section 226.7,1 which requires employers to pay a wage premium if they fail to provide a legallycompliant meal period or rest break, to have the same meaning or require the same calculations as the term "regular rate of pay" in section 510(a), which requires employers to pay a wage premium for each overtime hour. Neither of the briefs filed on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant Jessica Ferra by amici curiae--California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA) and Bet Tzedek-- warrants a different conclusion.

Both amici make the same analytical error as Ferra and the Court of Appeal's concurring and dissenting opinion (dissent)--they rest on the assumption that "regular rate," in and of itself, is a term of art under California law, which undergirds their contention that the terms "compensation" and "pay" are interchangeable in this context. But Loews's brief explained otherwise, and neither amici overcomes this showing.

Both amici also echo the argument made by Ferra--but not the dissent--that construing an hourly employee's "regular rate of compensation" to mean their base hourly wage rate would frustrate the purpose of section 226.7 and the corresponding

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Labor Code.

6

wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC). But neither amici demonstrates how this might be so.

CELA provides no logical basis for contending the Court of Appeal's and Loews's construction of section 226.7 would invite employer manipulation or incite needless litigation. This construction would not produce "absurd" results or represent this Court superimposing its own policy judgments, as Bet Tzedek suggests. And CELA fails to refute Loews's showing that any holding that adopts Ferra's interpretation of the "regular rate of compensation" for break premiums should apply only prospectively.

LEGAL DISCUSSION

I. CELA AND BET TZEDEK BOTH RELY ON THE ERRONEOUS PROPOSITION THAT "REGULAR RATE," BY ITSELF, IS A TERM OF ART UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW. CELA endorses the position of Ferra and the dissent that

"the two-word term `regular rate' is a term of art" and urges that it be interpreted the same as "in other wage-and-hour contexts." (CELA Br., p. 20.) Bet Tzedek also describes "regular rate" as a "term of art," and contends the Court of Appeal's construction renders it "meaningless surplussage [sic]." (BT Br., p. 12.)

But Loews's answer brief explained that "regular rate" is a term of art only under federal overtime law, not California wageand-hour law generally. (Compare 29 U.S.C. ? 207, subds. (a), (e) [defining "regular rate" only for purposes of that section, establishing federal overtime pay requirements] with Lab. Code, ? 510, subd. (a), and Wage Order No. 5-2001, subd. 3(A) [state

7

overtime provisions, using term of art "regular rate of pay"]; see Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of Cal. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 542, 551, fn. 3 [using unmodified phrase "regular rate" only when quoting a federal overtime regulation]; id. at p. 563 [using "that regular rate" to refer to employer's calculation of "regular rate of pay"].) Like Ferra, neither CELA nor Bet Tzedek provides any authority suggesting "regular rate" has any specialized meaning under California law, or anywhere else outside the context of federal overtime law.

Both amici emphasize that California courts have construed "regular rate of pay" to have the identical meaning as the federal term of art "regular rate." But that does not mean "regular rate of pay" is synonymous with "regular rate of compensation," which--as amici tacitly concede--is not a term of art and has no specialized meaning.

Amici suggest the choices by the IWC and Legislature to use only the phrase "regular rate of compensation" for break premiums--rather than "regular rate of pay," which the IWC has used for overtime premiums for more than half a century--were meaningless happenstance. But that contradicts this Court's presumption that "different words or phrases are used in the same connection in different parts of a statute" were intended to have "a different meaning." (Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1117 (Briggs).) That canon applies to IWC wage orders, which are "accorded the same dignity as statutes." (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1027 (Brinker).)

8

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download