Skip to content

Know Your Rights

Recent California Wage & Hour Decisions

California wage and hour law is one of the most complex and rapidly evolving areas of employment law in the country. Courts issue new decisions almost every month that can change what employers owe workers — and what workers are entitled to recover. We track these developments closely, because a good lawyer must know the current state of the law, not just the textbook version. If something on this page sounds like your situation, it may be worth a closer look.

April 23, 2026

Reyes v. Bulwark Construction, Inc.

Labor Relations

Workers covered by a union contract should know that some wage claims may be handled differently — and in a different court — than claims brought by non-union employees.

A construction worker filed employment-related wage claims in state court after working as a nonexempt hourly plasterer for Bulwark Construction. The employer removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California agreed with the employer, finding that the worker's claims were preempted by federal labor law. The core legal issue was preemption: when a worker's wage or employment claims can only be resolved by interpreting what a collective bargaining agreement says, federal labor law (specifically the Labor Management Relations Act) takes over and the claims must proceed in federal court under federal standards — not California's more protective state law framework.

Why this matters

If you work under a union contract, your wage rights may depend on what that specific contract says, and your legal options may be more limited than those of non-union workers. This doesn’t mean you have no recourse — it means the path may look different. Union members who believe their employer has violated their wage rights should seek advice promptly, because the applicable procedures and deadlines can differ from standard California wage claims.

April 21, 2026

Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar, Inc.

Class ActionWage Calculation119 Cal. App. 5th 1303

If your employer pays you bonuses but doesn’t factor them into your overtime rate, you may be owed more money than you realize — and you’re probably not alone. A California appeals court just made it easier for workers in that situation to band together and sue as a class.

Adam Martinez worked for Sierra Lifestar, an emergency medical services company. He and 134 other EMS workers received an annual bonus tied to National Emergency Medical Services Week. When Sierra Lifestar calculated overtime pay, it used only the workers’ base hourly rate — it didn’t include the bonus in the "regular rate of pay." Under California law, nondiscretionary bonuses must be factored into the overtime rate — meaning overtime, double time, and missed meal and rest break premiums all have to be recalculated to include the bonus. The trial court denied class certification; the California Court of Appeal reversed, holding that whether the bonus was discretionary was a classwide question that applied equally to all 135 workers.

Why this matters

If your employer pays you any kind of regular bonus, incentive pay, attendance premium, or productivity pay — and your overtime rate is just your base hourly wage times 1.5 — your overtime may be undercalculated. This applies to meal and rest break premiums too. California law allows you to recover those amounts going back several years.

April 9, 2026

Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc.

Filing Deadlines

A former bus driver had real wage and hour complaints against her employer — but the court threw out most of her claims because she waited too long to file. If you think your employer has violated your rights, don’t wait.

Tekoma Chaney worked as a bus driver for Transdev Services and alleged serious violations: unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks, inaccurate wage statements, late final pay, retaliation, and wrongful termination. When she filed suit in federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed most of her claims — not because the violations didn’t happen, but because she had waited too long to bring them. California wage and hour claims have strict statutes of limitations. Once those deadlines pass, most claims are gone regardless of their merit.

Why this matters

California law gives workers powerful tools to recover unpaid wages, penalties, and attorney’s fees — but those tools have expiration dates. Depending on the type of claim, the window can be as short as one year or as long as three years. If you experienced wage theft, missed breaks, retaliation, or a bad termination, the time to act is now.

April 7, 2026

Santana v. Studebaker Health Care Center

Arbitration / PAGA

Employers often try to use fine-print arbitration agreements to force workers out of court — but a California court just ruled that a confusing, self-contradictory arbitration packet isn’t enforceable.

When the plaintiff was hired at Studebaker Health Care Center, she signed onboarding documents containing contradictory provisions addressing arbitration, class action waivers, and PAGA rights. When she later filed a wage-and-hour class action including a PAGA claim, the employer moved to push the case into arbitration. The California Court of Appeal affirmed denial of that motion, finding that the conflicting and ambiguous language meant the employer couldn’t prove there was ever a clear, enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

Why this matters

Arbitration agreements must be clear and consistent to be enforceable. If you signed arbitration paperwork at hire that seemed confusing or contradictory, that agreement may not hold up — and your right to pursue wage claims in court or through PAGA may be intact.

Case summaries are provided for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Laws and case outcomes can change. Contact us to discuss how current law applies to your specific situation.

Call ShortLegal — 619-272-0720