Karen Livadas v. Lloyd Aubry, in His Official Capacity as Labor Commissioner for the State of California

Karen Livadas brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lloyd Aubry, the Labor Commissioner of California (Commissioner). She argues that the Commissioner deprived her of her right under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to bargain collectively because he denied her enforcement of certain sections of the California Labor Code based on his determination that adjudicating her dispute would concern the interpretation or application of a collective bargaining agreement containing an arbitration clause. The district court granted Livadas’s motion for summary judgment. 749 F.Supp. 1526 . We reverse.

I

Livadas was terminated from her job at Safeway on January 2, 1990. On that day, she requested all pay due her. The store manager refused, saying that he did not have payroll records at the store and that he would instead mail her a check. Liva-das received the check on January 5, 1990.

Livadas does not dispute the amount of the check, but she contends that Safeway’s three-day delay in payment violated California law. California Labor Code § 201 provides: “If an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable…

dissenting.

According to my colleagues, the question presented to us is whether Karen Livadas was entitled to a correct interpretation of state law. See Majority at 1146. The answer to this question is clearly no. The answer is much different, however, if one asks the right question: May Karen Liva-das be denied state-law benefits just because she is covered by a collective bargaining agreement? It is our responsibility to answer the question fairly presented *1148 to us by the litigants, not one we might prefer they had asked. Because the majority comes up with the right answer to the wrong question, I must dissent.

I

A. What happened here is fairly simple: Karen Livadas lost her job at Safeway and the employer did not send her her final paycheck until three days later. This is not a big deal, but under California law an employee is entitled to her paycheck on the date of departure; the law provides a penalty for any delay. Cal.Labor Code §§ 201 & 203. To ensure that impecunious employees are not denied their statutory rights, the state Labor Commissioner — the defendant here — is charged with enforcing such claims on behalf of employees who have valid claims and who are…

943 F.2d 1140 138 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2404 , 60 USLW 2251 , 120 Lab.Cas. P 10,967 Karen LIVADAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lloyd AUBRY, in his official capacity as Labor Commissioner for the State of California, Defendant-Appellant. No. 90-16650. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 13, 1991. Decided Sept. 11, 1991. H. Thomas Cadell, Jr., Chief Counsel, Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement, Dept. of Industrial Relations, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Michael T. Anderson, Davis, Cowell & Bowe, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before ALARCON, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges. RYMER, Circuit Judge: 1 Karen Livadas brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lloyd Aubry, the Labor Commissioner of California (Commissioner). She argues that the Commissioner deprived her of her right under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to bargain collectively because he denied her enforcement of certain sections of the California Labor Code based on his determination that adjudicating her dispute would concern the interpretation or…