On Monday morning, the Supreme Court will file its opinions in Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., and Saint Francis Memorial Hospital v. California Department of Public Health. (Briefs here; oral argument videos here and here.)
These are the last undecided cases from April‘s calendar, the first one conducted remotely. When the opinions file, there will be 23 cases left in the court’s summer pipeline.
Ward and Oman both come on reference from the Ninth Circuit.
The Supreme Court reordered and revised the questions presented in Ward: (1) Does California Labor Code section 226 apply to wage statements provided by an out-of-state employer to an employee who resides in California, receives pay in California, and pays California income tax on her wages, but who does not work principally in California or any other state? (2) The Industrial Wage Commission Wage Order 9 exempts from its wage statement requirements an employee who has entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in accordance with the Railway Labor Act (RLA). (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11090(1)(E).) Does the RLA exemption in Wage Order 9 bar a wage statement claim brought under California Labor Code section 226 by an employee who is covered by a CBA?
In Oman, the Supreme Court reworded the questions presented: (1) Do California Labor Code sections 204 and 226 apply to wage payments and wage statements provided by an out-of-state employer to an employee who, in the relevant pay period, works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time? (2) Does California minimum wage law apply to all work performed in California for an out-of-state employer by an employee who works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time? (See Cal. Labor Code, §§ 1182.12, 1194; Cal. Code Regs., § 11090(4).) (3) Does the Armenta/Gonzalez bar on averaging wages apply to a pay formula that generally awards credit for all hours on duty, but which, in certain situations resulting in higher pay, does not award credit for all hours on duty?
The court agreed in July 2018 to answer the Ninth Circuit’s questions, as restated, in Ward and Oman.
In Saint Francis, the court will address these issues: (1) Does equitable tolling apply to a petition for writ of mandate to challenge an action by a state regulatory agency that is filed outside the specified period? (2) Is equitable tolling justified on the facts of this case? The court granted review in August 2018.
The opinions can be viewed Monday starting at 10:00 a.m.
