Millan

Millan v. Restaurant Enterprises Group, Inc.

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 4th 477·18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 198·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 304·93 Daily Journal DAR 3759·1 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 517
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 1993G012006California6,327 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moore, J.

The Restaurant Enterprises Group, Inc. (appellant) appeals an order by the superior court compelling production of documents pursuant to an administrative subpoena duces tecum (subpoena) issued by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). The DLSE seeks to determine whether appellant is subject to California Labor Code section 227.3 , which prohibits tiie forfeiture of vested vacation time and requires the payment of accrued vacation time to employees upon separation from employment.

Appellant contends that because it maintained a Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association Trust (VEBA) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., ERISA), the DLSE lacks authority to enforce California law on vacation pay. It also argues the subpoena fails to meet constitutional standards for enforcement because it is not for a lawful purpose, seeks irrelevant records, and is excessive for the purposes of its inquiry.

The Statutory Scheme and Procedural Background

An administrative subpoena may be enforced if it is issued “for ‘a lawfully authorized purpose, within the power of [the legislative body] to command.’ ” (Craib v. Bulmash (1989) 49…

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.