Procedural Posture 5
The California Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment for defendants, an employer and two produce merchants through whom the employer sold strawberries, on plaintiff seasonal agricultural workers' claims under Lab. Code, §§ 1194 and 1194.2, and also affirmed a summary judgment for one of the produce merchant on plaintiffs' claim as purported third-party beneficiaries of the merchant's contract with the employer. Plaintiffs sought review.
Overview:
Plaintiffs claimed the Industrial Welfare Commission's (IWC) wage order No. 14-2001, entitled "Order Regulating Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions in the Agricultural Occupations," Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11140, commonly known as Wage Order No. 14, defined the produce merchants as their employers for purposes of § 1194. The court held that, in actions under § 1194 to recover unpaid minimum wages, the IWC's wage orders did generally define the employment relationship, and thus who might be liable. An examination of the wage orders' language, history, and place in the context of California wage law, moreover, made clear those orders did not incorporate the federal definition of employment. In the instant case, neither of the produce merchants "suffered or permitted" plaintiffs to work because neither had the power to prevent plaintiffs from working. The undisputed facts showed that the direct employer alone controlled plaintiffs' wages, hours, and working conditions. No evidence suggested the direct employer's employees viewed the produce merchants' field representatives as their supervisors or believed they owed their obedience to anyone but the direct employer and his foremen.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeal.