California Supreme Court Denies Review of Brewer v. Premier Golf Properties

authored by Reggie F. Borkum, Esq.

Link:

http://www.bkflaw.com/node/86

Author's Phone Number:

858-551-2440

Author's Email Address:

rborkum@bkflaw.com

Author:

Reggie F. Borkum, Esq.

On March 18, 2009, the California Supreme Court denied review of Brewer v. Premier Golf Properties, upholding the lower court’s holding that punitive damages are not recoverable for wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code.

In Brewer v. Premier Golf Properties, the plaintiff Brewer, a waitress at the Cottonwood golf course restaurant, sued her employer alleging age discrimination, meal and rest period violations, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay itemized wage statements and other California Labor Code violations. The lower court found in favor of defendant in regards the age discrimination claim, but, in favor of plaintiff on the wage and hour violations. The jury found defendant acted with “oppression, fraud or malice” and awarded punitive damages to defendant.

The court reversed the jury’s award of punitive damages and the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld the trial courts ruling. The court found that the “new right-exclusive remedy” doctrine operated as a bar to such recovery. This doctrine provides that “[w]here a statute creates new rights and obligations not previously existing in the common law, the express statutory remedy is deemed to be the exclusive remedy available for statutory violations, unless it is inadequate.” The court determined that the Labor Code statutes regulating pay stubs (§ 226) and minimum wages (§ 1197.1), as well as the regulations requiring employers to provide meal breaks (§ 512) and rest breaks (Cal. Code Regs., title 8, § 11090, sudb. 12(A)), all “create new rights and obligations not previously existing in the common law.” Furthermore, these provisions provide their own remedial schemes, including damages and penalties, and the “new right-exclusive remedy” doctrine therefore applies. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that punitive damages should be allowed because some of the relevant Labor Code sections, including section 226.3 and 1197.1, state that the penalties provided are “in addition to any other penalty provided by law.” The court determined that, instead of authorizing punitive damages for Labor Code violations, this language insures that the recovery of civil penalties under the relevant provisions does not function to preclude recovery of other statutory penalties provided in the Labor Code.

The Brewer decision is favorable to employers in California reducing each such employer’s exposure to punitive damages in wage and hour disputes. However, it is important to remember the language of the Brewer decision appears to limit it to the specific California Labor Code violations heard in that case (meal and rest periods, minimum wage, and itemized wage statements).

For further information please contact Reggie F. Borkum, Esq., at 858-551-2440 or via e-mail at rborkum@bkflaw.com.