California Supreme Court Watch

Jul 17, 2018
#18-91 Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., S248702. (9th Cir. No. 16-16415; 889 F.3d 1068; Northern District of California; No. 3:15-cv-02309-WHA.) Vidrio v. United Airlines, Inc., (9th Cir. No. 17-55471; 889 F.3d 1068; Central District of California; No. 2:15-cv07985-PSG-MRW.)

#18-91 Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., S248702. (9th Cir. No. 16-16415; 889 F.3d 1068; Northern District of California; No. 3:15-cv-02309-WHA.) Vidrio v. United Airlines, Inc., (9th Cir. No. 17-55471; 889 F.3d 1068; Central District of California; No. 2:15-cv07985-PSG-MRW.) Request under California Rules of Court rule 8.548, that this court decide questions of California law presented in consolidated matters pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As restated by the court, the questions presented are: “(1) Does California Labor Code section 226 apply to wage statements provided by an out-of-state employer to an employee who resides in California, receives pay in California, and pays California income tax on her wages, but who does not work principally in California or any other state? (2) The Industrial Wage Commission Wage Order 9 exempts from its wage statement requirements an employee who has entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in accordance with the Railway Labor Act (RLA). (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11090(1)(E).) Does the RLA exemption in Wage Order 9 bar a wage statement claim brought under California Labor Code section 226 by an employee who is covered by a CBA?”

Review granted: 07/11/2018

See Ninth Circuit order