Morgan

Morgan v. United Retail Inc.

Good Law
113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 10·186 Cal. App. 4th 1136·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1194·16 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 637
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 23, 2010B216130California5,650 words

Opinion

Opinion

Zelon, J.

Appellant Amber Morgan (Morgan) filed a class action lawsuit against her former employer, respondent United Retail Incorporated (United Retail), for violation of Labor Code section 226. On behalf of a class of current and former nonexempt employees, Morgan alleged that United Retail’s wage statements failed to comply with section 226, subdivision (a) because they listed the total number of regular hours and the total number of overtime hours worked by the employee, but did not list the sum of the regular and overtime hours worked in a separate line. The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of United Retail on the section 226 claim. We conclude that the trial court properly granted summary adjudication because United Retail’s wage statements complied with the statutory requirements of section 226 by “showing . . . total hours worked.” (§ 226, subd. (a)(2).) We accordingly affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. Class Action Complaint

Morgan was employed by United Retail as a nonexempt comanager from about October to November 2005. During the relevant time period, United Retail issued to each nonexempt California employee a weekly itemized wage…

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.