The California Supreme Court is going to issue an opinion later this morning in Smith v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (L’Oreal USA, Inc., Real Party in Interest). This case presents the following issue:
When an employee’s employment terminates upon the completion of an agreed-upon period of employment or a specific task, has the employee been “discharged” within the meaning of Labor Code section 201 such that “the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately”?
We will discuss it later today if time permits, but we have a final fairness hearing and an MSC today, so we probably won't comment until tomorrow.
Pretty much what I expected from watching the argument. The only question I have is whether this definitively addresses the temporary employment situation where the temp may leave one assignment and take on another. Although some of the statements of the court would seem to apply to the temp agency, there decision in the Stephens v. Tulare County decision last month suggest a different outcome where there is an expectation of further employment down the road. The one thing for sure is that the Cal Supreme Court will not feel bound by this decision if they think a different result would make better public policy in the temp context. They now seem entirely results oriented in their decisions.
Posted by: TommyK | July 10, 2006 at 08:42 PM