WageLaw has a good summary here, explaining the two differing theories and how this case makes the analysis much clearer.
Funny titles aside, I was surprised WageLaw wasn’t more critical of this case, especially when I was (“Storm is his usual cautious self” they say.) Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria! But I think this says what I’m saying:
It is left to our imagination what kind of evidentiary showing would be necessary to establish that the statutory remedy under the Labor Code would be inadequate. We suspect that this holding would not have compelled a different result under so-called “slavery” cases, such as Bureerong v. Uvawas (1996) 922 F.Supp. 1450, where the District Court permitted punitive damages to be asserted in a wage claim brought by garment workers who were denied minimum wage and overtime.
In other words, even though they’re wages, they’re not wages. Or at least not was wagey as minimum wages. So, either we now have classes of wages, or a Court of Appeal has implicitly reversed the Supreme Court.
Again, I want to emphasize that it’s not my perosnal opinon that the statutory penalties and remedies provided in this case aren’t “adequate” or that I really think that meal period premiums aren’t penalties.
For those of you strongly opposed to the holding in Murphy I would ask whether you think Courts of Appeal chipping away at decision is more effective than merely expedient.
Petition for Review watch begins…
