Smith v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.4th 77 (2006)
Amanza Smith worked as a hair model for one day for an agreed upon wage of $500. She performed the day of work as required, but did not receive her wages until more than two months later. Smith brought suit seeking, among other remedies, waiting time penalties pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 201 and 203.
Section 201 requires employers to pay employees all wages earned immediately upon ?discharge.? Section 203 establishes a penalty, commonly referred to as a waiting time penalty, for employers who fail to immediately pay employees all wages at the time of discharge. The defendant, L?Oreal, successfully moved for summary adjudication of the claim, based upon the contention that Smith could not recover Section 203 penalties because the job termination following her one day of work did not constitute a ?discharge? under Section 201. Smith then filed a petition for writ of mandate, which the Court of Appeal denied. The California Supreme Court however granted Smith?s petition and reversed the ruling of the trial court. Therein the Supreme Court held that ?an employer effectuates a discharge within the contemplation of sections 201 and 203, when it releases an employee upon the employee?s completion of the particular job assignment or time duration for which he or she was hired.? In interpreting Sections 201 and 203, the Supreme Court reviewed the legislative history and invoked the longstanding public policy in favor of full and prompt payment of an employee?s earned wages.

Back to main