Armenta

Armenta v. Osmose, Inc.

Good Law
135 Cal. App. 4th 314·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1982·2006 Daily Journal DAR 10·37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 460·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 49
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 29, 2005B174806, B177501California4,279 words

Opinion

Opinion

Coffee, J.

Here we decide the proper method for determining whether California’s minimum wage law has been violated under Labor Code section 1194 and how to calculate the waiting time penalties under section 203.

Appellant Osmose, Inc. appeals from the judgment awarding its former employees, respondents, a total of $90,398.22 in unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages under section 1194.2, waiting time penalties under section 203, and attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $301,625.40 and $7,110.97, respectively.

Appellant contends the judgment must be reversed because the trial court (1) failed to use an “averaging method” in determining whether it violated California’s minimum wage law (§ 1194); (2) erred in finding that it had “willfully” withheld wages under section 203 and in calculating the waiting time penalties; and (3) erred by awarding attorney’s fees to respondents.

We conclude the court erred in calculating the amount of the waiting time penalties. We reverse and remand for recalculation of those penalties but affirm the judgment in all other respects.

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellant’s business includes maintaining standing wood utility poles for…

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.