HOLDINGS: [1]-An employer’s practice of assigning on-call shifts that required employees to call in to work two hours before such shifts to determine whether they needed to go to work triggered the reporting time pay requirement of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7-2001 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070), which meant reporting as ordered and, under the circumstances alleged, had to be construed to include telephonic reporting, although this was not a common practice when the wage order was issued, because telephonic reporting and in-person reporting gave rise to the same concerns about inefficient and abusive scheduling practices and inconvenience and expense to workers; [2]-Although employers did not trigger reporting time pay requirements merely by expecting workers to check their schedules, the alleged on-call shifts imposed significant limitations on time not at work. Parties’ civil litigation lawyer appeal.
Outcome
Reversed and remanded.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-A motorist who had paid a parking citation and thus lacked a beneficial interest under Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, had public interest standing to seek prospective relief in mandamus to compel a city to review contested citations as provided by law; [2]-Pursuant to Veh. Code, § 40215, subd. (a), the city as the issuing agency was required to conduct the initial review of contested parking citations and could not delegate that duty under Veh. Code, §§ 40200.5, 40200.6, subd. (a), to a private processing agency; [3]-The city’s home rule authority under Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5, subd. (a), did not apply because contracting for parking citation services was not legislation; [4]-The motorist could recover private attorney general fees under Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5, because the action enforced an important public interest and conferred a significant benefit on people parking.
Outcome
Judgment affirmed.
