Insights
Publications

California Court Finds Shift Call-Ins May Trigger Reporting Time Pay

February 13, 2019 Articles

A California court has held that employees required to call their employers before a shift to determine whether they are assigned to work may be entitled to reporting time pay on days when they are not actually put to work. Thus, employers utilizing similar scheduling models may be required to pay employees not assigned to work an amount equal to half the employee’s normal daily pay for those shifts.

In Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc., B280151 (Feb. 4, 2019), a California Court of Appeal allowed a lawsuit to proceed against retailer Tilly’s, which had scheduled employees for a combination of regular and “on-call” shifts. For Tilly’s “on-call” shifts, employees were required to contact their stores two hours before the shift start to determine whether they were needed to work those shifts. Tilly’s advised employees to assume they would be needed for their on-call shifts until told otherwise, and employees were disciplined for failing to contact their stores prior to the on-call shifts, for contacting the stores late, or for refusing to work when assigned in the call.

Skylar Ward, a Tilly’s sales clerk, filed a putative class action complaint against Tilly’s alleging that its employees were due reporting time pay on days they were required to call in for a shift but were not directed to appear for work. The court held that Tilly’s on-call scheduling system triggered wage order reporting time pay requirements, which provide pay for each workday “an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work.”

The court explained that “report[ing] for work within the meaning of the wage order is best understood as presenting oneself as ordered.” The court opined that, when on-call employees contacted Tilly’s two hours before on-call shifts, as Tilly’s ordered, they were “reporting for work.” The court rejected Tilly’s argument that “reporting for work” “requires an employee’s physical presence at the workplace at the start of a scheduled shift.”

The court found Tilly’s policies to be precisely the type of restriction that reporting time pay was designed to discourage. The court opined that such on-call shifts burden employees, who must make child and elder care arrangements for such shifts and cannot take other jobs, go to school, or make social plans—but who nonetheless receive no compensation unless they ultimately are called in to work. The court acknowledged, however, that the wage orders create difficult line-drawing challenges as the orders do not specify how much advance notice employees must be given to avoid a reporting time penalty.

In light of this decision, employers should review their scheduling policies. In some instances, the cost of reporting time pay may be necessary to ensure that an employee is available for the shift. Where an employer does not want to incur reporting time expenses, it should attempt to distinguish its shift policies from Tilly’s.

Specifically, employers should reconsider policies which penalize employees for refusing to work an “on-call” shift or for generally not being available on short notice. In addition, employers may consider revising any mandatory call ins by either (a) circulating or publishing upcoming available shifts and allowing employees to check in for the shifts they wish to work, or (b) assigning managers to contact employees who have indicated that they might be available for additional shifts, and offering those shifts on a voluntary basis.

Firm Highlights

Publication

California Employers Face Various New Laws in January 2021

The California Legislature passed and Governor Newsom signed several new laws covering topics ranging from COVID-19 to leaves of absence to data reporting. Most of these laws take effect January 1, so now is a...

Read More
Publication

Equal Pay Data Reporting, An Asset for the Strategic Employer

Holly Sutton with Farella Braun + Martel, and co-speaker Erin Hastings with Seiler, discuss "Equal Pay Data Reporting, an Asset for the Strategic Employer." California’s recently passed SB973 requires certain employers to collect and...

Read More
News

Newsom Signs Executive Order Nixing Workplace Masks for Vaccinated Employees

Rebecca Stephens commented in The Recorder article,  " Newsom Signs Executive Order Nixing Workplace Masks for Vaccinated Employees."  In the article, Rebecca said, “These new guidelines come as a relief for many employers since a prior...

Read More
News

Kelly Matayoshi Joins UC Hastings Law Center for Litigation and Courts Advisory Board

Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that partner Kelly Matayoshi has joined the five-member advisory board for the UC Hastings Law Center for Litigation and Courts .  The nonpartisan Center for Litigation...

Read More
News

Farella Names Rebecca Stephens and Nadia Arid As LCLD 2021 Pathfinders

Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that senior associate Rebecca Stephens and associate Nadia Arid were selected to be members of the 2021 class of Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Pathfinders...

Read More
Publication

Employment Law Issues to Consider Before Including Work Made for Hire Clauses in Contractor Agreements

For most employers, it is important to own the intellectual property rights in written and/or graphic work commissioned from independent contractors.  But including a Work Made for Hire Clause (“WMFH Clause”) in an independent...

Read More
Publication

Law Updates for California Employers: COVID Sick Leave Obligations, Meal-Period Rules, COBRA Benefits

New legislation and a recent court decision have significant implications for California employers. Certain California employers must now provide supplemental paid sick leave to employees who miss work for specified reasons related to the...

Read More
Publication

Returning to the Office: Legal and Practical Considerations for Keeping Your Team Safe

Farella's Ashley Breakfield (moderator) and Holly Sutton, along with guest speaker Tom Cashin from Shorenstein, discuss “Returning to the Office: Legal and Practical Considerations for Keeping Your Team Safe.” COVID-19 shelter-in-place mandates caused employers to close their...

Read More
News

Rebecca Stephens Accepted to ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law’s 2021 Leadership Development Program

Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that Rebecca Stephens was selected to be a member of the American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law’s 2021 Leadership Development Program (LDP). The LDP is...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Named to 2021 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thirty-seven Farella Braun + Martel lawyers were named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists of top attorneys in Northern California for 2021. 2021 Farella Northern California Super Lawyers: George Argyris – Estate...

Read More