Facts

Plaintiff Thomas Palazzolo worked as a per diem Patient Care Service Aide at defendant Childrens Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA). The plaintiff alleged that CHLA violated California wage and hour laws by failing to pay overtime, failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to provide proper wage statements, and related theories.

CHLA filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiff for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, money had and received, and conversion alleging plaintiff submitted timecards in which he was paid for shifts that he did not work.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that CHLA violated California wage and hour laws pertaining to overtime, meal and rest breaks, pay stubs, and reimbursement of employee expenses. CHLA policy prevented him from properly recording all hours worked or all meal and rest periods missed. Plaintiff also claimed that defendant had a policy and practice of requiring employees to inaccurately fill out their timecards by only recording their scheduled hours rather than the actual hours that employee worked. Further, defendant's policies and procedures did not record missed meal periods that were short or taken after the fifth hour of work. Defendant's policies and procedures entirely failed to record missed rest periods.

Additionally, plaintiff claimed that defendant had a policy and practice of failing to provide a second meal period to all 12-hour employees and its policy was to have employees work through any second meal period. Plaintiff contended that the evidence used to allege that plaintiff was paid for days he did not work was not trustworthy because much of it was maintained in pencil or otherwise susceptible to alteration by various other employees and because plaintiff's timecards, as with other employees, were often filled out and submitted to payroll by CHLA supervisory employees who never conferred with plaintiff to determine their accuracy.

The plaintiff asserted unpaid overtime in violation of Labor Code sections 510, 511, 1198; unpaid wages at termination in violation of Labor Code sections 201 and 202; failure to pay wages in violation of Labor Code section 204; denial of meal breaks in violation of Labor Code sections 512(a) and 226.7(a); denial of rest breaks in violation of Labor Code section 226.7(a); improper wage statements in violation of Labor Code section 226(a); repayment of wages to employer in violation of Labor Code section 221; unpaid business-related expenses in violation of Labor Code section 2802; conversion and theft of labor; and violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
CHLA contended that plaintiff had the responsibility to timely and accurately report on his timecards the time he worked and any missed meal or rest breaks, so CHLA could properly and timely pay plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that he honestly filled out his timecards. His timecards included the statement "I certify that I have been provided with meal and rest periods in accordance with CHLA policy and state regulations. My signature constitutes a legal statement that all information is true and correct." The plaintiff signed most of his timecards below this statement. For timecards management had to prepare for him because he failed to prepare or sign them, he never told CHLA that there was any error in the timecards, pay stubs, leaving CHLA to believe he had been properly paid.

CHLA also contended that plaintiff was correctly paid for the time reported on his timecards, including overtime and missed breaks that were recorded. He stated his timecards were accurate. The plaintiff was barred by Evidence Code section 622 from contradicting his timecards, which are conclusively presumed to be correct. The plaintiff was barred by Evidence Code section 623 from contradicting his behavior, which caused CHLA to believe that he had been properly paid, he never told CHLA during his employment that any timecard or pay stub was incorrect, that any pay stubs was erroneous, or that he was not paid for overtime or missed breaks that he never reported.

CHLA alleged that plaintiff claimed CHLA policies prevented him from accurately reporting work hours beyond his schedules shift and missed breaks, but this contradicted his own admissions and timecards showing that he reported such matters on his timecards and was properly paid.

Result

Judge Elizabeth Allen White granted summary judgment on each cause of action in plaintiff's complaint and on two affirmative defenses, for unclean hands and no willful violation of the wage and hour statutes under Labor Code section 203. The court granted summary judgment, finding no issues of triable fact existed as to plaintiff's claims. CHLA was only obligated to offer meal breaks and authorize and permit rest breaks, not to ensure that breaks were taken, CHLA provided meal breaks and authorized and permitted rest breaks, CHLA provided proper wage statements, and did not violate any of the statutes or laws as plaintiff alleges. Earlier, the court of appeal issued a stay of discovery pending the court deciding whether plaintiff had standing, among other issues.