My husband has a small business in California. One of his part-time, hourly employees recently resigned. My husband has a signed, dated resignation letter. She was scheduled to work for one day after the date she resigned. Her supervisor called her the night before the scheduled day and cancelled her work because 1. she was not needed due to decreased workload and 2. he had concerns about lack of professional conduct with customers. She has now filed a claim with the labor board that she is due pay for that day and for 30 days thereafter as a penalty. Is this a valid claim? What are the laws governing this?

When did he give her the final paycheck for the time she DID work? Did she also have any accrued vacation balance and, if so, did he pay her that as well?

She did have accrued vacation and it was paid out. She received her final paycheck 3 workdays after her last work day (which was 4 days after she gave notice - she worked the day after she gave notice).

When did he give her the final paycheck for the time she DID work? Did she also have any accrued vacation balance and, if so, did he pay her that as well?

Thanks for any help.

The employer does not owe her for time she might have worked had she not quit.

He has received a notice from the labor board that there will be a hearing next month. She is claiming the 1 days pay plus 30 days pay in penalty. If the law is clear that he doesn't owe anything, why would the labor board hear the case? Is it normal that they hear any claim or is more likely that her version of the situation is different, causing them to think there is a case?
thanks.

Straight from the website
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_Paydays.htm
Q. I just gave my employer two weeks advance notice that I was quitting. Instead of letting me work until the date of my resignation, he told me that I was discharged, and instructed me to collect my personal belongings and leave. Upon leaving he gave me a check for all wages earned up through my last hour of work. Am I entitled to be paid for the time that I gave notice? Additionally, when must my final wages be paid?


A. You are not entitled to any wages for the notice period because you did not perform any work during that period. For the purpose of wage payments, your employer changed a quit into a discharge, and all of your earned wages became due and payable immediately at the time he terminated you.

and http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_WaitingTimePenalty.htm
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_ReportingTimePay.htm

I'm not the hearing board so I do not know why they scheduled it for a hearing.

She received her final paycheck 3 workdays after her last work day (which was 4 days after she gave notice - she worked the day after she gave notice).

Just to clarify to the above quote, when did she submit her resignation? Did she submit the resignation atleast 3 days prior to her last day?

Rule of thumb for me is if employee submit resig. letter 72 hour prior, all $ owe would be paid to the employee on last day. If employee didn’t furnish resig. letter prior, then you have 72 hours to prepare the last check.

If anything she is owed 1 day pay as penalty because she was not paid within 72 hours of giving notice.

But the law does not require payment within 72 hours of giving notice; it requires payment within 72 hours of the last day of work. Since she worked one day after her notice, the employer was in compliance, if only just.

But the law does not require payment within 72 hours of giving notice; it requires payment within 72 hours of the last day of work. Since she worked one day after her notice, the employer was in compliance, if only just.

I thought it was on the last day if at least 72 hours was given or within 72 hours if less notice was given. So if an employee gives notice on Tuesday that Friday is their last day, then Friday is the day that wages are due. If employee comes in Thursday and says that Friday will be their last day wages are due on Sunday.

I thought it was on the last day if at least 72 hours was given or within 72 hours if less notice was given. So if an employee gives notice on Tuesday that Friday is their last day, then Friday is the day that wages are due. If employee comes in Thursday and says that Friday will be their last day wages are due on Sunday.

Stupid law. I jump through hoops to get a replacement for Saturday and Sunday and, while I am at it, I have to pay the quitting employee on Sunday while loyal employees have to wait until the scheduled date of pay.

You may be right that the employee was paid an entire day late and that the employer might owe a penalty of a day's pay.

Stupid law.

Stupid law.
I agree. But unfortunetly, as an employer we do not get to choose what laws we follow and which ones we don't.

Just thought of something else. She was told to not come in which could be looked at as a termination making wages due immediately. So in fact she could be due penalty for 4 days, not just 1. Four days because she was effectively termianted on the day she gave notice, 4 days before she actually recieved payment.

The best the employee could hope for is the 4 days that Christa mentioned, and for the same reasons mentioned. The ex-employee cannot benefit with 30 days' pay if the check was not 30 days late; 30 days is the maximum, it's not 30 days or nothing.

Stupid law. I jump through hoops to get a replacement for Saturday and Sunday and, while I am at it, I have to pay the quitting employee on Sunday while loyal employees have to wait until the scheduled date of pay.

You may be right that the employee was paid an entire day late and that the employer might owe a penalty of a day's pay.

Stupid law.


"Let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed".
Abraham Lincoln

The employee gave one day's notice. She was paid four days after giving notice; three days after her last day of work. The employer was compliant.

Or am I reading something differently than everyone else?

"She did have accrued vacation and it was paid out. She received her final paycheck 3 workdays after her last work day (which was 4 days after she gave notice - she worked the day after she gave notice)."

The CA rules say 72 hours. I have always taken the rule to mean 72 calendar hours, not 3 working days.

I am reading the quote from the OP as saying "3 workdays after her last work day (which was 4 days after she gave notice)". I read the OP's statement as the payment occuring 4 calendar days (96 hours) after the last day worked, or one day late.

I agree with the other answers that we are looking at a maximum of one day penalty, not 30 days. Also the penalty is a "may", not a "will". My understanding is that the penalty is not automatic.

One day would be if she were allowed to work her finally day. She was not. She was told the night before not to come in, which is effectively a termination for the consideration of payment of wages. Therefore she was due wages immediately.

CBG is not 72 hours after last day. It is 72 hours after giving notice of less than 72 hours.

Good point. That sounds like potentially 4 days of penalties then.

----- from the CA-DLSE website -----

8. Q. I just gave my employer two weeks advance notice that I was quitting. Instead of letting me work until the date of my resignation, he told me that I was discharged, and instructed me to collect my personal belongings and leave. Upon leaving he gave me a check for all wages earned up through my last hour of work. Am I entitled to be paid for the time that I gave notice? Additionally, when must my final wages be paid?

A. You are not entitled to any wages for the notice period because you did not perform any work during that period. For the purpose of wage payments, your employer changed a quit into a discharge, and all of your earned wages became due and payable immediately at the time he terminated you.

The following is cut and pasted directly from the law itself, not a summary and not an FAQ:

If an employee not having a written contract for a
definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall
become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the
employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or her intention
to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages
at the time of quitting.

Now, unless you are going to tell me that this phrase:

"unless the employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or her intention to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages
at the time of quitting" (emphasis mine)

means that they have to be given their final wages at the time THEY TELL THEIR EMPLOYER THEY ARE LEAVING, then this phrase:

"If an employee not having a written contract for a
definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall
become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter" means the last day of work, not the time of giving notice.

"Quits" can't mean the time you give notice in one instance, and the last day they work, in another one. Either it means the notice-giving, in which case an employee who gives their employer notice of their intention to leave to leave with more than 72 hours notice has to be given their final wages THAT SAME DAY, or else it means the last day of work, in which case it would be 72 hours from the last day of work.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=00001-01000&file=200-243

I agree with cbg as to the fact that it's not 72 hours from giving notice.

Well, I think the confusion on the board gives reason to the hearing. The board wants to understand exactly when termination was received and when monies owed were paid.

Well, I think the confusion on the board gives reason to the hearing. The board wants to understand exactly when termination was received and when monies owed were paid.

Wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.