Derum
Derum v. Saks & Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Miller, J.
ORDER DENYING SAKS & COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the court is Defendant Saks & Company’s (“Saks’s”) motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 15), and its related request for judicial notice, (Doc. No. 15-3). The matters were fully briefed and were found suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.l. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies Saks’s motion for summary judgment and its request for judicial notice.
BACKGROUND
In this putative class action, Plaintiff Ilia Derum asserts that Saks violated California Labor Code § 226(a), which requires employers to provide accurate itemized wage statements that include, among other things, the inclusive dates of the relevant pay period.
Plaintiff was a sales associate for Saks at a Saks Off Fifth store for about seven weeks, beginning on May 6, 2014. (Doc. No. 15-7 (“Joint Stip.”) ¶ 1; Doc. No. 15-6 (“Rodriguez Deck”) ¶ 3.) At the beginning of her employment, she received, reviewed, and kept a copy of Saks’s “Associates Handbook.” (Joint Stip. ¶2.) The handbook stated: “Hourly Associates are paid weekly and checks are dated on Friday for the previous pay period. The pay…