The SCA requires each federal service contract in excess of $2,500 to contain clauses specifying the minimum wage and fringe benefits to be paid the employees under the contract. Before the, the federal government had been ‘subsidizing’ substandard levels of compensation by awarding contracts to those who were able to bid low by paying less. Double Day Office Services (9th Cir.1997) 121 F.3d 531, 533.) “Its purpose is to protect employees of government contractors. The SCA requires government contractors to pay service employees “minimum wages and benefits determined by the Secretary of Labor.” (U.S.
Accordingly, the key questions here are legal, and concern whether the SCA preempts the remedies available to Naranjo in state court regarding the denial of meal and rest breaks and denial of itemized records. The court determined that Naranjo had no right to file a private action to recover unpaid wages, and that his sole remedy lay in the administrative process of the SCA.
#Spectrum f secure trial#
The trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Naranjo's claims. Specifically, Spectrum alleged that Naranjo's wage claims were preempted by federal law, and that any claim for unpaid wages must be pursued through the administrative process afforded by the SCA. In seeking summary judgment, Spectrum neither disputed nor conceded Naranjo's factual allegations, but contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over his claims.
#Spectrum f secure code#
(2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1177, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 6.) Naranjo's first and second causes of action alleged that Spectrum regularly denied its employees meal and rest periods, and failed to compensate them in accordance with Labor Code section 226.7, which obliges an employer to pay an employee “one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.” His third and fourth causes of action sought penalties for Spectrum's failure to pay the additional compensation upon the resignation or discharge of the plaintiffs (Lab.Code, § 203), and failure to provide the plaintiffs with itemized records of their wages and deductions (Lab.Code, § 226). 122, 762 P.2d 46.)Īs Naranjo's briefs on appeal focus exclusively on the propriety of summary judgment on his claims under the Labor Code, we limit our inquiry to these claims. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 807, 819, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 56.) “A defendant is entitled to summary judgment if the record establishes as a matter of law that none of the plaintiff's asserted causes of action can prevail. We review the ruling on Spectrum's motion for summary judgment de novo. On February 11, 2008, the trial court granted summary judgment, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over Naranjo's claims. Spectrum sought summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, contending that the SCA provided Naranjo with his exclusive remedies for these claims. & Prof.Code, § 17200), conversion, and injunctive relief. (e), 226.7), as well as claims for unfair business practices (Bus. The complaint asserted claims under the California Labor Code (§§ 203, 226, subd. On June 4, 2007, Naranjo filed a class action against Spectrum on behalf of himself and other employees who had resigned or been discharged from their employment. The terms of Spectrum's contract with ICE rely on wage and fringe benefit determinations by the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor (Secretary) pursuant to the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act of 1965 (SCA) (41 U.S.C. Naranjo worked as a detention officer for Spectrum, which provides security services in holding facilities and detention centers throughout Los Angeles County under a contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal agency. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND (Spectrum) for violations of the Labor Code, the trial court granted summary judgment in Spectrum's favor. In appellant Gustavo Naranjo's action against respondent Spectrum Security Services, Inc. Marsili, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant. SPECTRUM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. Gustavo NARANJO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.
0 kommentar(er)
