State of California Edmund G. Brown, 312, GOVERNOR OF INDUSTRIAL DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Room 120 {at i- San Jose, California 95113 Fax (408) 277-9643 DLSE Judgment Assignment Letter 1/21/2014 Priscilla Soriano, c/o Margarita Alvarez, KGACLC 1030 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 Dear Ms .. Sari-1m) In accordance with California Labor Code section a judgment has been entered in your name with the court against your former employer. Our of?ce is currently in the process of contacting your former employer in an effort to collect the amount found due. If the amount due is not paid voluntarily, further collection efforts will be necessary. If you wish to have the DLSE conduct further collection efforts on your behalf, please sign and return the enclosed ?Assignment of Judgment? to our office. If you choose to allow the DLSE to conduct further collection efforts, please be advised that you will not receive status reports on your ?le and that collection efforts may take up to two years or longer. Further collection efforts may include the ?ling of real property liens, levies on your former employer?s assets and the referral of your judgment to public or private agencies for other collection actions as permitted by law. If you choose to have the DLSE Judgment Enforcement Unit conduct further collection actions on your behalf, you may 11?0! conduct your own collection actions, including negotiating a settlement with your former employer or hiring a collections agency. If your former employer contacts you to discuss settlement, you must refer them to our of?ce. You will also have the responsibility to keep our of?ce advised of any changes of address. If you wish to have your judgment referred to the DLSE Judgment Enforcement Unit, you will need to either come into the of?ce and present proof of identity so we can witness you signing the ?Assignment of Judgment? or you may take the ?Assignment of Judgment? to a notary and return the notarized ?Assignment of Judgment? to our of?ce. Your ?le will be held open for a period of 15 days from the date of this letter. If we have not received the completed ?Assignment of Judgment? from you within that time, we will close the ?le. Sincerely, Jason rinity Deputy Labor Commissioner LABOR COMMISSIONER, STATE FOR RT USE ONLY Department of Industrial Relations Division of Labor Standards Enforcement 100 I?aseo de San Antonio, Ste. 120 San Jose, CA 95113 277-9643 Attorneys for the Labor Commissioner County 0 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Santa Clara Santa Clara JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF: Priscilla Soriano c/o Margarita Alvarez, KGACLC 1030 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 DEFENDANT: Sandy Jane Peck, an individual dba Lillian and Fred?s Ambulatory Care 1308 Peach Court San Jose, CA 95116 COURT NUMBER 1 13CV25331 I State Case Number 1 2 - 88448 JT ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT (CCP Section 673) l, the above-named plaintiff and judgment creditor, hereby assign and transfer to the Labor Commissioner of the State of California the moneyjudgment entered in the above-entitled case in favor of me and against the defendant named above as follows: $64,904.66 December 27, 2013 Amount of Judgment Date entered i hereby transfer all my right, title and interest in any sums of money due by reason of thejudgment to the Labor Commissioner. Dated: January 21, 2014 JEU 4 (Rev. 5/13) Judgment Creditor(Assignor) Date: ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT LC. 98 Superior Court, County of Santa Clary TELEPHONE NUMBER 1- For court use only UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE 191 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113 PLAINTIFF: Priscilla Soriano 'k w. til.le :2 53$; .- Sandy JanePeek, an individual dba Lillian and Fred?s Ambulatory Care 1308 Peach Court SanJose,CA95116 113CV258311 Case Number 12 . 33443 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT To the parties and their attornies of record: You are hereby notified that the attached cg?ywof- the judgment in the above entitled cause was entered on 4 3 5? 3, . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am a clerk of the above-named court and not a party to this cause, thatI served a copy of this NOTICE and a copy of the judgment, on the below date, by placing a c0py thereof in separate envelope(s) addressed to: LABOR COMMISSIONER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Priscilla Soriano . De artment of Industrial Relations c/o Margarita Alvarez, KGACLC 1039 The Alameda Division of Labor Standards Enforcement San Jose CA 95116 I 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Ste. 120 . . San Jose, CA 95113 dba Lillian and Fred?s Ambulatory Care Sandy Jane Peck, individually 1308 Peach Court San Jose, CA 95116 Sandy Jane Peck, individually 128 Springwood Way South San Francisco, CA 94080 and by then sending said envelope(s) and depositing same with postage fully prepaid United States mail at California on 2 San ti Clerk of the Court . DAVE) (3333:3sz r: MW 3? DLSE 545C (Rev. 1) Provided by the Labor Commissioner for the Court?s use LABOR COMMISSIONER, - CALIFORNIA (For Court use only) Depart tent of Industrial Relations DivisioF oI?Labor Standards Enforcement {00 Pa en de San Antonio, Ste. 120 San Jolie, CA 95113 I 277-9643 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF Santa Clara Santa Clara JUDICIAL DISTRICT Priscilla Soriano DEFENDANT: Sandy Jane Peck, an individual dba Lillian and Fred?s Ambulatory Care Court numb STATE CASE NUMBER REQUEST THAT CLERK ENTER JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT ON FINAL 12 - 88448 JT ORDER, DECISION on AWARD on THE LABOR REQUEST THAT CLERK ENTER The Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner has become final and the ierk is requeste to enterjudgtnent immediately in conformity with the accompanying certi?ed cepy. LABOR: COMMISSIONER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY ?A?her DATED: December 19, 2013 Steven Wegner DEPUTY JUDGMENT A certi?ed copy of? a final Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner has been tiled with this court. Judgment therefore is entered as follows; Plaintiff recover from Defendant. (1) 37,365.60 for wages and expenses pursuant to Labor Code Section(s) 98.! and/or 2802; (2) 13,440.00 for liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code Section 1194.2; (3) - 6,375.06 interest pursuant to Labor Code Section(s) I 194.2 and/or 2802(b); (4) 6,565.20 for additional wages accrued pursuant to Labor Code Section 203 as a penalty (5) 00 for penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 203.1. (6) 0.00 other (specify): (7) I 63,745.86 Total Amount ofPlaiIItifi?s Award (3) 723.80 for post hearing interest pursuant to Labor Code Section(s) 1 I942 and/or 2802(b) (9) I 435.00 for ?iing fee, pursuant to Labor Code Section 101, et. seq. (IO) 64,904.66 Total Amount SEC 3 ?i 2013 I certify this to be a true copy of the judgment entered on - in Judgment book at page or micrc?r?lm, Dursuant to CCP 668gA (3,1,1 Clerk, by ,Deputy Clerk af?mmhve omega. . a - 44s DLSE 12) REQUEST THAT CLERK ENTER LC 98 DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ?l STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT m: it CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL (C.C.P. 1013A) OR CERTIFIED MAIL 1, Vn do hereby certify that I am a resident ofor employed in the County Of Santa Clara over 18 years of age, not a party to the within action, and that I am employed at and my business address is: LABOR COMMISSIONER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Ste. 120 San Jose, CA 95113 FAxmoa) meteors I am readily familiar with the business practice of my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On (lemma;- 2(1] 3 at my place of business, a copy of the following document(s): Order, Decision or Awa rd was(were) placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope, by ?rst class mail with postage fully prepaid, addressed to: NOTICE TO: Margarita Alvarez, Supervising Attorney KGACLC 1030 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 and that envelope was placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices. I certify under penalty of perjury til at the foregoing Is (me and correct. Executed on; October 10, QOI ?i at San lose California STATE CASE NUMBER: 12-88448 JT a Vo DLSE ATTY. (3/06) CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I..C. 98 LABOR COMMISSIONER, STATE CALIFORNIA For Cl Use Only: Department of Industrial Relations Division of Labor Standards Enforcement 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Ste. 120 San Jose, CA 95113 277-9643 Plaintiff: Priscilla Soriano Court Number Defendant: Sandy Jane Peck, an individual dba Lillian and Fred?s if; a} a it: Ambulatory Care il '1 i? .11} . 5735?; ~97} i Ali-.1: is: State Case Number ORDER, DECISION OR AWARD OF THE issiOilER 12 - 88448 JT 1. The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Labor Commissioner of the State of California as follows: DATE: October 18, 2013 El CONTINUED TO: CITY: 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Ste. 120 San Jose, CA 95113 2. IT IS ORDERED THAT: Plaintiff recover from Defendant. 37365-60 for wages (with lawful deductions) 132440-00 for liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code Section 1 194.2 0-00 Reimbursable business expenses 6,375.06 for interest pursuant to Labor Code Section(s) 98. 1 194.2 for additional wages accrued pursuant to Labor Code Section 203 as a penalty 3 6,565.20 . . and that same shall not be subject to payroll or other deductions. 0.00 for penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 203.1 which shall not be subject to payroll or other deductions. 0.00 other (specify): 63,745.86 TOTAL AMOUNT OF AWARD 3. The herein Order, Decision or Award is based upon the Findings of Fact, Legal Analysis and Conclusions attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 4. The parties herein are notified and advised that this Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner shall become ?nal and enforceable as in a court of law unless either or both parties exercise their right to appeal to the appropriate court* within ten (l0) days of service of this document. Service of this document can be accomplished either by first class mail or by personal delivery and is effective upon mailing or at the time of personal delivery. if service on the parties is made by mail, the ten (10) day appeal period shall be extended by five (5) days. For parties served outside of California, the period of extension is longer (See Code of Civil Procedure Section 10i3). In case of appeal, the necessary filing fee must be paid by the appellant and appellant must, immediately upon filing an appeal with the appropriate court, serve a copy of the appeal request upon the Labor Commissioner. If an appeal is ?led by a corporation, a non-lawyer agent of the corporation may file the Notice of Appeal with the appropriate court, but the corporation must be represented in any subsequent trial by an attorney, licensed to practice in the State of California. Labor Code Section 98.2(c) provides that if the party seeking review by filing an appeal to the court is unsuccessful in such appeal, the court shall determine the costs and reasonable attorney?s fees incurred by the other party to the appeal and assess such amount as a cost upon the party filing the appeal. An employee is successful if the court awards an amount greater than zero. PLEASE TAKE Labor Code Section 98.2(b) requires that as a condition to ?ling an appeal of an Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner, the employer shall first post a bond or undertaking with the court in the amount of the and the employer shall provide written notice to the other parties and the Labor Commissioner of the posting of the undertaking. Labor Code Section 98.2(b) also requires the undertaking contain other speci?c conditions for distribution under the bond. While this claim is before the Labor Commissioner, you are required to notify the Labor Commissioner in writing of any changes in your business or personal address within 10 days after any change occurs. LABOR COM Sept TE OF CALIFORNIA Superior Court, County of Santa Clara UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE .. 19] North First Street By; 3a" 1053? CA 95113 Wegner OFFICER DATED: October 28, 2013 DLSE 535 (Rev. 2) ORDER, DECISION OR AWARD OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER LC. 93 BEFORE THE LABOR COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Priscilla Soriano, Plaintiff; CASE NO. 12-88448 JT ORDER, DECISION, OR AWARD OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER Sandy Jane Peck, an individual dba Lillian and Fred?s Ambulatory Care, Defendant. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed an initial claim with the Labor Commissioner?s office on November 15, 2012. The complaint raises the following allegations:1 1. Overtime wages earned, but unpaid, from April 1, 2011 through July 29, 2012, claiming 432 hours at $18.75 an hour (time and V2 the regular rate of pay) and 1,248 hours at $23.45 an hour (time and 1/2 the regular rate of pay); 2. Liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code Section 1194.2 equal to the amount in unpaid minimum wages. From April 1, 2011 through July 29, 2012 a minimum wage of $8.00 an hour was due for 1,680 hours. However, minimum wages were not paid; 3. Interest pursuant to Labor Code sections 98.1 and 1194.2; 4. Waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 203 at a daily rate of $218.82 for an indeterminate number of days not to exceed 30 days. On October 18, 2013 a hearing was conducted in the offices of the Labor Commissioner in San Jose, California, before the undersigned hearing officer designated by the Labor Commissioner to hear this matter. Plaintiff Priscilla Soriano appeared and was represented by Sam Kesten of the Katherine 8: George Alexander Community Law The amount of wages that plaintiff acknowledges were received exceeds the amount of regular wages claimed (by about Therefore, all wages received were deemed to have been for regular wages and the claim for regular wages was dismissed. Page 1 ORDER. DECISION, OR AWARD OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER (Case No. 12-88448 J1) Clinic. Defendant Sandy Jane Peck appeared and was represented by Allan Villanueva, Esquire. Carol Mendoza was the certified interpreter in Tagalog. Due consideration having been given to the testimony, documentary evidence, and arguments presented, the Labor Commissioner hereby adopts the following Order, Decision, or Award. FINDINGS OF FACT Plaintiff was employed by defendant to perform personal services as a Care Giver Administrator for the period April 1, 2011 through July 27, 2012 in the County of Santa Clara, California, under the terms of a written agreement at the promised rate of $26,000 per year plus housing, later raised, effective August 1, 2011, to $32,500 per year plus housing. Plaintiff quit with notice on July 27, 2012. Plaintiff testified that she was paid $41,547.46. Plaintiff also testified that she earned $41,510.40 in regular wages. For reasons that cannot be understood the Complaint had a claim for regular wages even though plaintiff acknowledged that all regular wages had been paid. Plaintiff?s regular wage was a salary and did not pay any part of overtime. Defendant?s facility is a 15 bed residential care facility for mentally disabled adults. The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has regulations requiring that adult residential facilities have a certified administrator. (Title 22, California Code of Regulations ?80063 et seq.) The regulations require, among other things, that the administrator have knowledge of care and supervision needs; knowledge and ability to comply with applicable laws and regulations; ability to maintain or supervise financial records; ability to direct the work of others; ability to establish the facility?s policy, program and budget; ability to recruit, employ, train, evaluate, discharge staff. The regulations also require that someone, not necessarily the administrator, be present in the facility at all times. At the time of Plaintiff?s employment Mrs. Lillian Lee owned the business. Mrs. Lee was also a resident. Mrs. Lee was infirm and on oxygen. As such, what MrsaLee Page 2 ORDER, OR AWARD OF THE LABOR (Case No. 12-88448 JT) Ix.) h?I i-?l could do was severely limited. Mrs. Lee passed away in May of 2012.2 There were no time records. Plaintiff was required to live on the property as a condition of employment. Plaintiff was allowed to live in a guest house on the property. Defendant argues that the value of the housing must be added to the money wages when calculating whether plaintiff received a salary equivalent of twice the minimum wages. There is no written agreement between plaintiff and defendant regarding crediting the housing towards the amount of plaintiff?s wages. The maximum value which can be charged for the lodging is $451.89 permonthf? An annual salary of twice the minimum wage is $33,280 (2,080 non-overtime hours times $16 an hour). The maximum value of housing that can be credited each year is $5,422.68 ($451.89 per month times 12 months). Plaintiff also testified that; from April 2011 through July 29, 2012; she worked 432 overtime hours at $18.754 an hour and 1,248 overtime hours at $23.45 an hour. Plaintiff further testified that her duties included meeting, sometimes by telephone. the social worker and apprising them of the client?s status; prepare a needs and services plan for the clients; keeping logs, when necessary, of incidents involving the clients; would assist Mrs. Lee as a Care Giver when Mrs. Lee rang the buzzer; would handle the clients personal finances cigarette money, etc.) and interact with the families and conservators as necessary regarding the needs of the client; cooked breakfast; lunch; and dinner for the clients; did some cleaning; and inventoried and dispensed medication as prescribed by a doctor. The evidence is that plaintiff spent well over 50% of her work time engaged in these activities. Additionally; plaintiff testified that she never created a budget for the business; 2 Mrs. Lee was defendant?s aunt. Defendant inherited the care home and became the CD88 administrator. Defendant did not object to liability arising while Mrs. Lee was the owner. 3 Industrial Wcl?zre Commission Wage Order 5-2001, section 10. 4 Plaintiff?s hourly rate is calculated by taking the annual salary, divided by 52 weeks in a year. divided by 40 non-overtime hours in a week. The regular rate is then paid at time and for overtime. Page 3 ORDER, DECISION, OR AWARD OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER (Case No. 12-88448 JT) pmnever opened the mail; and never went to the bank for the business. Plaintiff saw defendant come in periodically during the week to Open the mail, go to the bank, and handle the needs of the business that Mrs. Lee could not handle. On average plaintiff worked 12 hours a day for $15.63 an hour. As such, plaintiff?s daily wage is $218.84 (8 regular hours at $15.63 an hour plus 4 overtime hours at $23.45 an hour (time and 1/2 the regular rate of pay)). LEGAL ANALYSIS Regarding the claim for overtime, defendant contends that plaintiff is exempt from overtime pursuant to the administrative exemption of IWC Wage Order (Order) 5?2001, section The Wage Order provides that the activities constituting exempt work and non?exempt work shall be construed in the same manner as such terms are construed in the following regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act effective as of the date of this order: 29 CPR Sections 541.201?205, 541207-208, 541.210, and 541.215. In order to qualify for the administrative exemption, defendant must show, as relevant to this case, 1) that the employee performed office or non-manual work directly related to management policies or the general business operations of the employer or the employer?s customers; 2) that the employee customarily and regularly exercised discretion and independent judgment in the performance of such work; 3) that the employee either regularly and directly assisted an executive or administrative employee, or performed special assignments or specialized work under only general supervision, or who executes special assignments and tasks under only general supervision; 4) and that the majority of the workweek (primarily engaged) was Spent engaged in duties that meet the test of the exemption. Also, to qualify for the exemption, the employee must be paid a salary of at least 2 times the minimum wage. Regarding the requirement that an exempt employee be performing office or non- manual work "directly related to management policies or general business operations of [the] employer or [the employer?s] customers? 29 CFR 541.205 states that phrase: Page 4 ORDER. DECISION. OR AWARD OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER (Case No. 12-88448 JT) describes those types of activities relating to the administrative Operations of a business as distinguished from ?production? or, in a retail or service establishment, ?sales? work. In addition to describing the types of activities, the phrase limits the exemption to persons who perform work of substantial importance to the management or operation of the business of his employer or his employer's customers. The administrative operations of the business include the work performed by so-called white?collar employees engaged in ?servicing? a business as, for, example, advising the management, planning, negotiating, representing the company, purchasing, promoting sales, and business research and control. . . . As used to describe work of substantial importance to the management or operation of the business, the phrase ?directly related to management policies or general business operations" is not limited to persons who participate in the formulation of management policies or in the operation of the business as a whole. Employees whose work is ?directly related? to management policies or to general business operations include those work affects policy or whose responsibility it is to execute or carry it out. The phrase also includes a wide variety of persons who either carry out major assignments in conducting the operations of the business, or whose work affects business operations to a substantial degree, even though their assignments are tasks related to the operation of a particular segment of the business. (3) Some firms employ persons whom they describe as ?statisticians.? If all Regarding the requirement of the exemption that the employee "customarily and ORDER. DECISION, OR AWARD OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER such a person does, in effect, is to tabulate data, he is clearly not exempt. However, if such an employee makes analyses of data and draws conclusions which are important to the determination of, or which, in fact, determine financial, merchandising, or other policy, clearly he is doing work directly related to management policies or general business operations. regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment,? this phrase means the comparison and evaluation of possible courses of conduct and acting or making a decision after the various possibilities have been considered. The employee must have the authority or power to make an independent choice, free from immediate direction or supervision and with respect to matters of significance. However, 29 CPR. 541.2076?) Page 5 (Case No. 12-88448 JT) mummrmeHme?mm?meSCh?S Code section 200 defines wages as compensation paid for work performed. As such, an employee is entitled to be paid wages, at the agreed rate, for the work that they did. Further, a salary paid to a non~exempt employee does not pay any part of overtime. In this case, plaintiff worked 1,680 hours of overtime for which she was not paid anything. Therefore, plaintiff is awarded $37,365.60 as overtime wages (432 overtime hours at $18.75 an hour (time and 1/2 the regular rate of pay) plus 1,248 overtime hours at $23.45 an hour (time and 1/2 the regular rate of pay)). Regarding the claim for liquidated damages, Labor Code Section 1194.2 states in relevant part: In any action under [Labor Code] Section 98, 1193.6, or 1194 to recover wages because of the payment of a wage less than the minimum wage fixed by an order of the commission or by statute, an employee shall be entitled to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unlawfully unpaid and interest thereon. . . . Notwithstanding subdivision if the employer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court or the Labor Commissioner that the act or omission giving rise to the action was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of any provision of the Labor Code relating to minimum wage, or an order of the commission, . . . the Labor Commissioner may, as a matter of discretion, refuse to award liquidated damages or award any amount of liquidated damages not exceeding the amount specified in subdivision [emphasis added]. Further, in order to receive the relief provided for in Labor Code section the employer must demonstrate both subjective good faith and objective grounds for good faith. However, the employer?s subjective intent is not relevant. Moreover, an employer who fails to inquire into the law cannot have subjective good faith. Additionally, ignorance of the law is never a defense. In this case, plaintiff worked 1,680 hours for which she was not paid anything. Therefore, plaintiff is awarded $13,440 as liquidated damages (1,680 hours at a minimum Page 7 ORDER, OR AWARD OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER (Case No. 12-88448 JT) wage of $8 an hour). Also, pursuant to Labor Code section 98.1, all awards granted pursuant to a hearing shall accrue interest on all due and unpaid wages. Further, Labor Code section 1194.2 requires that interest be awarded on any liquidated damages. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover interest in the sum of $6,375.06. Regarding waiting time penalties, Labor Code section 202 provides that if an employee quits their employment, after giving at least 72 hours advance notice of their intention to quit, all earned wages shall become due and payable on the last day. Accordingly, plaintiff?s final wages were due July 28, 2012. Further, section 203 of the Labor Code establishes that if an employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Labor Code section 202, the wages of the affected employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof, at the same rate until paid, up to a maximum of 30 calendar days. This penalty is referred to as waiting time penalties. Moreover, "[t]he reasons for this penalty provision [in section 203] are clear. ?Public policy has long favored the full and prompt payment of wages due an employee.? {Citation} [W]ages are not ordinary debts. . . [B]ecause of the economic position of the average worker and, in particular, [their] dependence on wages for the necessities of life for [themselves] and [their] family, it is essential to the public welfare that [they] receive [their] pay (Mamika o. Baron (1998) 68 Cal.App.4{h 487, 491 quoting Pressler Donald L. Bren C0. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 831, 837.) "Section 203 reflects these policy concerns. The statute is designed to ?compel the prompt payment of earned wages; the section is to be given a reasonable but strict construction? [against the employer]?. (Bombill o. Robert Saunders 8 Co. (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 1, 7). ?The object of the statutory plan is to encourage employers to pay amounts concededly owed by [them] to discharged or terminated employee without undue delay and to hasten settlement of disputed amounts.? (Triad Data Services, Inc. Jackson (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d Supp 1, Additionally, it is noted that willful, as used in section 203, does not require malice Page 8 ORDER, DECISIONI OR AWARD OF THE LABOR (Case No. 12-88448 JT) IO {0-10 h?i i??l or blamable conduct, but merely that the failure to pay was intentional. Intentional as defined by the statute and case law does not mean with evil intent, but simply that the employer knows, or should have known, such wages were due and fails to pay them. Unlike the criminal Violations which may arise under the law for failure to pay wages, the civil penalty assessed pursuant to Labor Code section 203 does not require that the employer intended the action; merely that the action occurred and it was within the employer?s control; (Davis 0. Morris (1940) 37 Cal.App.2d 269). 'In this case, defendant knew, or should have known, that she owed plaintiff wages. However, defendant failed to pay plaintiff her full wages. As such, defendant willfully withheld plaintiff?s wages. Therefore, plaintiff is awarded $6,565.20 as waiting time penalties (plaintiff?s daily wage for 30 days). CONCLUSIONS For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant pays plaintiff as follows: 1. $37,365.60 as wages; 2. $13,440.00 as liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code section 1194.2; 3. $6,375.06 as interest pursuant to Labor Code sections 981 and 1194.2; 4. $6,565.20 as waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 203. Steven G. Hearing Officer The total award to plaintiff is $63,745.86. Dated: October 28, 2013 Page 9 ORDER. DECISION, OR AWARD OF THE LABOR (Case No. 12-88448 JT)