Corrales

Corrales v. Bradstreet

Caution
153 Cal. App. 4th 33·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1141·62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 440
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 10, 2007C051407California12,263 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

Fausto Corrales and Ramiro Estrada (appellants) appeal from a judgment denying their petition for a writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) and complaint for declaratory relief against Angela Bradstreet, as Labor Commissioner for the State of California (the Commissioner). Appellants complain then Commissioner Donna Dell (1) violated statutory duties relating to timely processing of employee claims under Labor Code section 98, and (2) improperly issued a precedent decision purporting to be binding in all section 98 hearings, in circumvention of rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq. (APA).)

The underlying substantive issue is whether payments for missed meal/rest periods ordered pursuant to section 226.7 constitute wages or penalties. The precedent decision characterized such payments as penalties, with the apparent result of smaller potential recoveries due to a shorter limitations period and unavailability of other statutory penalties. While this appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion holding section 226.7 payments are wages, not penalties. (Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.