Silver Lining in a California Wage and Hour Cloud

by Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Seyfarth Synopsis: Employers adopting an Alternative Workweek Schedule (AWS) must follow the specific rules in the applicable wage order or face liability for unpaid overtime. But employees cannot recover penalties for accurate wage statements, even if the statements do not record unpaid wages that are due. Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc.

Legal Background

California Labor Code section 511 provides that an employer may adopt an AWS only if two-thirds of the affected employees approve the AWS in a secret vote. Specific AWS requirements appear in the applicable wage orders.

Wage Order 1, for the manufacturing industry, permits adoption of an AWS only upon satisfying these requirements: (1) the employer proposes an AWS in writing, (2) two-thirds of the affected employees vote to adopt the proposed AWS, in a secret ballot conducted during regular working hours at the work site, (3) the employer has made a written disclosure regarding the effects of the proposed arrangement on wages, hours, and benefits, and has held at least one meeting at least 14 days before the vote, (4) the results of the election have been timely reported to the Division of Labor Statistics and Research, (5) employees have not been required to work the new hours for at least 30 days after election results were announced, and (6) the employer has not coerced any employee’s vote.

Labor Code section 226, meanwhile, requires that employers issue wage statements for each pay period that accurately record such things as the wages earned, the number of hours the employee has worked, and the pay rate assigned to each hour of work.

The Facts

Olvin Maldonado operated a production machine for Epsilon Plastics, Inc., manufacturing plastic bags. Maldonado worked under an AWS by which employees worked 12-hour shifts that paid them at their regular rate for their first 10 hours of work and at an overtime rate for the next two hours.

Maldonado sued Epsilon on behalf of a class of production employees, claiming unpaid daily overtime wages for the time worked after eight hours. The lawsuit involved four periods in which Epsilon’s plant operated on an AWS.

The first period began in April 2007. The AWS then in effect had been in place since Epsilon acquired the plant from Apple Plastics in 2002. The trial court found no evidence that Apple had met the AWS requirements of a written disclosure, a meeting, a vote, a 30-day waiting period, or a report to the state. In January 2008, Epsilon conducted a revote to confirm the employees’ agreement to the AWS. There was a secret ballot, preceded by a written memo, but there was no evidence of a pre-vote meeting. In addition, a supervisor voted even though he was salaried exempt, and thus was not an employee subject to the AWS.

The second period ran for about a month in 2009. As to this period, Epsilon’s HR administrator prepared a memo stating that the plant would be moving to a 12-hour shift and would be “conducting this election” to get “employee input.” The memo continued: “Below please indicate if you agree with the twelve hour shift schedule or if you disagree with it.” The memo explained the terms of the AWS, but failed to specify that without adoption of the AWS, overtime pay on the 12-hour shift would begin after the first eight hours. The HR administrator met with each shift of employees, but not until the same day they voted for the AWS. There was evidence that employees were coerced into voting yes, and the AWS went into effect six days after the vote.

The third period covered two weeks in 2010, but Epsilon did not conduct a vote for this period.

The plant returned to an AWS for a fourth, two-year period between 2011 and 2013. A vote was conducted eight days after this AWS took effect.

The trial court concluded that, as to all four periods, the AWS had not been adopted in accordance with the applicable wage order. The court awarded unpaid overtime, interest, penalties for untimely termination pay and inaccurate wage statement penalties, and attorney’s fees. As to the wage statements, the trial court awarded penalties. The court found that the statements were inaccurate because whenever the plant was on the AWS the wage statements did not properly indicate the ninth and tenth hours were overtime hours. The trial court further concluded the employees had suffered injury from this violation because they were not paid all of the overtime wages they were due.

Epsilon appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal rejected Epsilon’s argument that Maldonado had failed to prove that Epsilon’s predecessor, Apple, had failed to comply with AWS requirements. It was Epsilon—not Maldonado—who had the burden of proof as to whether Apple had complied. Epsilon failed to meet its burden as to the initial period of the AWS, as well as to the later periods.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Epsilon, however, about the wage statements. The wage statements did correctly recorded the hours actually worked and the pay actually received. That was good enough. There was no further requirement that the wage statement show what the employees should have been paid.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that if failure to pay overtime wages at the appropriate rate generates an injury that justifies penalties for an inadequate wage statement, then there would be an apparent unintentional double recovery. The Court of Appeal concluded that while the invalid AWS mandated that the employees receive unpaid overtime wages, interest, and attorney’s fees, that violation did not mandate an award of penalties for wage statements that accurately recorded the hours worked and the pay received.

What Maldonado Means for Employers

Wage order procedures for an AWS must be followed to a “T” to avoid liability for overtime wages. A company purchasing a company already using an AWS should look for evidence that the AWS was properly adopted; a successor company cannot assume that its predecessor correctly followed all the prescribed procedures.

The silver lining of this decision is the commonsense approach the Court of Appeal took as to the wage statements. Wage statements need only record what employees actually got paid, not what they should have been paid.

Among the implications of this ruling would be that employers should not be liable for wage statements that fail to record premium pay employees should have received during a pay period in which the employer failed to provide a meal or rest break. First, as Maldonado clearly implies, recording pay employees should have received is not the function of a wage statement. Second, of course (and this is an issue Maldonado does not reach), money paid to compensate for breaks is, properly understood, not wages earned. The harshness of the Maldonado ruling on AWS issues as to Labor Code section 511 is thus counterbalanced by a sensible reading of Section 226.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Seyfarth Shaw LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.