California’s Labor Code is designed to protect workers from exploitation and retaliation, ensuring that they are compensated fairly for their labor and are not subjected to unethical or unsafe working conditions. A recent case before the California Supreme Court has clarified the scope of worker protections under the state’s labor laws. The case, The People ex rel. Lilia Garcia-Brower, as Labor Commissioner, etc., v. Kolla’s Inc., raises important questions about the liability of employers who retaliate against employees for disclosing violations of the law.
Background on California’s Labor Code
California’s labor laws are among the most comprehensive in the nation, designed to protect workers from exploitation and discrimination and ensure that they are paid fairly for their labor. The state’s labor code covers a wide range of issues, including minimum wage rates, overtime pay, rest breaks, and meal periods, among others. However, one of the most critical provisions of the code concerns the right of workers to disclose suspected violations of the law without fear of retaliation.
One case that has raised important questions about the protections offered by California’s labor code concerns The People ex rel. Lilia Garcia-Brower, as Labor Commissioner, etc., v. Kolla’s Inc. The case concerns an employee at Kolla’s, a strip club in San Francisco, who reported to the owner that she had not received payment for several shifts. In response, Kolla’s fired her, told her never to return, and threatened to report her to immigration authorities.
The complaint, subsequent firing, and legal action
In 2014, the complainant reported to the club’s owner that she had not received payment for her previous three work shifts. The owner denied the allegation and accused her of lying. Later that same day, the complainant was fired and told to leave the premises. The club’s owner also threatened to report her to immigration authorities. The complainant filed a complaint under the Labor Code against Kolla’s and the club’s owner with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) of the Department of Industrial Relations.
The complaint and investigation process went as follows
Following an investigation, the DLSE found that the termination and the immigration-based threats violated California law. The DLSE proposed remedies, including back pay for the complainant and a $1,000 penalty against Kolla’s for violating section 1102.5(b) of the labor code. However, Kolla’s and the club’s owner refused to accept these proposed remedies, which prompted the labor commissioner to sue them for Labor Code violations, including retaliation under section 1102.5(b).
Appellate court decision on Section 1102.5(b) protection
At trial, the trial court found in favor of the Labor Commissioner and granted judgment against Kolla’s and the club’s owner. However, on appeal, the defendants argued that Section 1102.5(b) of the labor code did not protect the complainant’s disclosure of her wage dispute to the employer. The appellate court agreed and overturned the previous judgment, finding that the section only protected employees who reported suspected violations to the government or law enforcement agencies, not directly to their employers.
Regarding the Supreme Court of California’s judgment on section 1102.5(b) protection, the court ruled in favor of the labor commissioner after granting a review of the case. On May 6, 2021, the court found that section 1102.5(b) of the labor code protected the complainant’s disclosure of her wage dispute directly to her employer. The court determined that the purpose of the section, its legislative history, and its placement within the statutory scheme aimed to protect workers, supported a broad reading of the word “disclose.”
Reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s judgment
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of the labor code’s anti-retaliation provisions was to encourage employees to report suspected violations of the law without fear of retaliation. The broad interpretation of section 1102.5(b) ensures that employers cannot avoid liability by retaliating against employees who report violations of the law directly to the employer. The court also noted that the narrow interpretation favored by the defendants would create a loophole for employers to retaliate against employees without facing consequences by claiming that the employee did not report the violation to the government or law enforcement agencies.
The California Supreme Court’s ruling in The People ex rel. Lilia Garcia-Brower, as Labor Commissioner, etc., v. Kolla’s Inc., clarifies the scope of worker protections under the state’s labor laws. The ruling ensures that employees who report suspected violations of the law directly to their employers are protected against retaliation under section 1102.5(b) of the labor code. The case will now be returned to the appellate court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s findings, setting an important precedent for future labor law cases in California.