Preview
FOR COURT USE ONLY
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
D MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
D JUSTICE COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA APR 23 2019
COUNTY 0F Santa Clara ‘
‘
I
rk of the Court.
swam A my ol Santa cu:
JUDICIAL DISTRICT By
WM.“ .
Srull Yellm
DEFENDANT
Fisch Sigler LLP
COURT NUMBER
NOTICE 0F APPEAL l 9 CV3 4 6 4‘1 5
NOTICE OF APPEAL award of the Labor Commissioner
of the Order, Decision or inSlateCase Number
“/C'CM '4893 80
Dated MarCh 29~ 20 I9 and served upon SW“
lhe undersigned appellant, Yelling Via ma“
'
Apr” 8- 7
~0 I9
on .isgiven and Code Seaion
pursuant to Labor
filed 98.2.
Appeilam anached as Exhibit “A” a copy of the Order, Decision or Award appealed and requests that the Clerk oi the Coun sel the cause for hearing
before the above—entilled court. where il shall be heard de novo in accordance with Labor Code Section 98.2, and that the Clerk of the Court give Notice
of time, date and place of the new trial to each of the following parties and the Labor Commissioner's office at the places listed below.
Appellant certifies
that a copy ot this Notice of Appeal has been sewed upon the Labor Commissioner and a copy has been mailed to the Respondent, as shown bebw.
APPELLANT {OR ATTORNEY) (NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER)
Sruli Yellin
900 Lafayette Street, Suite 20 |
-9
Santa Clara, CA 95050
OFFICE OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER (ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)
$TA1E LABOR COMMISSIONER
100 Paseo de San Antonio Room 120
San Jose, CA 951 13 408277. I 266
RESPONDENT (OR ATTORNEY) (NAME, ADDRESS VELEPHONE NUMBER)
Fisch Sigler LLP
530i Wisconsin Ave NW
Washington, DC 20015
”3‘“
v/c‘b/ 20m j/Z/
W
m
Sm: d C&h‘ria
D!
mm
oi
law
1
Rela'wm
SumaidsWW!!!
/ macaw
LC.N
B6 36611
ME 537 (REV.
3’33) NOT‘CE OF APPEAL - Engish
BEFORE THE LABOR COMMISSIONER
H
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SRULI YELLIN,
CASE No. CM489380
Plaintiff,
ORDER DECISION, 0R AWARD
v.
©®V©mhmf0
OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER
FISCH SIGLER, LLP, a District of
Columbia limited liability
parmership,
Defendant.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed an initial claim with the Labor Commissioner’s office on April 10, 2018.
The complaint raises the following allegatiofis:
1. Damages pursu'ant to Labor Code § 248.5(b)(3) for failure to comply with record
keeping requirements on deduction statements pursuant to Labor Code §246(i),
claiming $4,000.00;
2. Interest pursuant to Labor Code section 24856).
3. Waiting time penalties pursuant t9 labor Code section 203 at a daily rate of
$769.23 for an indeterminate number of days not to exceed 30 days.
On November 30, 2019, a hearing was conducted in the offices of the Labor
gSRififitfiBBBSES’GEGSSSL‘S
Commissioner in San Jose, California, before the undersigned Hearing Officer designated
by the Labor Commissioner to hear this matter. Plaintiff Sruli Yellin appeared in pro per.
Partner Ray William Sigler appeared on behalf of Fisch Sigler, LLP (Defendant).
Due consideration having been given to the testimony, documentary evidence, and
arguments presented, the Laber Commissioner hereby adopts the following Order,
Decision, or Award.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Defendant employed Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of a written employmmt
agreement as an attorney in San Jose, California, County of Santa Clara, from July 6, 2015
through January 12, 2018. Defendant is a law firm shedalizing in pateht litigation.
Page 1
ORDER. DECISION. OR AWARD OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER (Case No. CM-489386)
Plaintiff brings a claim for violation of the Healthy Families Act of 2014. Plaintiff
I
claimed that defendant failed to provide him with paystubs which reflect the amount of
paid sick leave available, or paid time off leave provided in lieu of sick leave, for use.
Plaintiff claimed damages pursuant to Labor Code § 248.5(b)(3) for failure to comply with
record keeping requirements on deduétion statements pursuant to Labor
\ooo:\xoxcnu>mN.—A
Code §246(i).
Defendant argued that, upon hire, plaintiff received a copy of itsVacation and Sick
Leave Policy for Attorneys, which provides for unlimited sick leave. The policy encourages
'
emfil'oyees to "take firhe off as cbnsistéht With their work obligations and necessary to have
a health work-life balance.” Plaintiff conceded that he received and understood this policy.
Plaintiff also conceded that he did not suffer any damage or monetary loss as a result of
not having sick leave accrual reflected on his itemized wage eaming statement
In addition, defendant represented that it requested its payroll vendor to includa
”unlimited” as a line item on the paystubs to comply with §246(i), but the vendor informed
defendant itcould not provide such a notation on paychecks.
Concerning
NNp—AHHv—AHHp—Ir—IHH
plaintiff’s claim for waiting time penalties, defendant represented that
the plaintiff had engaged in inappropriate behavior towards a female job applicant on
‘
October 16, 2017, which led to defendant having to hire outside counsel to address the
issues caused by plaintiff’s conduct. Plaintiff was banned from the office and returned on
December 1 to meet with defendant to discuss the next step. Rather than terminating him
gfigbfifiwBHoomqmmpmmpo
I
on the spot, defendant placed plaintifton a four-week paid leave period during whichhe'
would not have to pertorm any work and instead use the time to find another full-time job.‘
Plaintiff requested, and defendant granted, an additional week of paid employment
because of a planned vacation with his family at the end'of December 2017, for a total of'
I
'
five weeks paid.
At die close of the five-week period plaintiff requested another extension, and
defendant agreed to contimie to employ him for an additional week at half pay. On January
10, 2018, plaintiff informed-defendant he was resigning his position effecfive January 12,.
2018. Plaintiff received the final agreed upon payment via direct deposit on January 15,
Page 2
ORDER. DECISION, 0R AWARD OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER -
. (Case No. CM—489380)
H 2018.
N LEGAL ANALYSIS
0-)
Plaintiff, as tl;1eparty asserting the affirmafive,‘has the Burden of proof including
)b the initial burden of going forward and thé burden of persuasion by.a preponderance of
U1 ‘the evidence; Evidénce Code §§ 115 and 500.‘
0‘ "'An'employer shall provide an employee with written notice that sets forth the
amount of paid sick leave available, or paid fime off lea‘ve an employer provides in lieu of
m,“
sick leave, for use afi-eitfier 'the emfiiovyee’s itefifized wage statement described in Section
\O 226 or in a separate writing provided on the designated pay date with the employee’s
-
payment of wages.” Labor Code § 246(i). Failure to comply with Lahor Code Section 246(i)
may result in a penalty assessment of $4,000.00 per Labor Code § 2485(b)(3).
Labor Code § 246(h) provides: ”An employer shall not be assessed any penalty or
hquidhted damages under this article due to an isolated and unintentional payroll error or
written notice errdr that is a clexical o_r an inadvertent mistake regarding the accrual or
I
available use of paid sick leave.” It further states, ”In reviewing for compliance with fltis
NNHHHp—AHHHflp—«H
section, the ‘factfinder may consider as a relevant factor whether the employer, prior to
an alleged violation, has adopted and is in compliance with a set of policiee, procedures,
.
and practices that fully comply with this section”. [Emphasis added]
1n the interim cage, defendant offered plaintiff, and its employees, unlimited sick
leave. Pleinfiff acknowledged that he understood and benefited from this policy. Plainfiff
did not suffer any damage or monetary loss as a result of not having sick leave accrual
reflected on his itemized wage earning statements. Defendant tried, unsuccessfully, to have
a line item for sick leave reflected on paychecks inprder to comply with § 246(i). The
-
finding is defendant had a set of policies, procedures, and took necessary steps to fully
5% comply with this section. Accordingly, plaintiff shall take nothing as sick leave penalty per
Labor Code 248.5(h)(3).
I
WVO\
NNN Labor Code Secfion 202 requires the employer to pay all outstanding wages on flie
last day of employment when the employee has given 72 hours advance noh'ce of their
Page 3
ORDER. DECISlON, OR AWARD 0F THE LABOR COMMISSIONER (Case No. CM—489386)
H intention to quit, or within 72 hours of the separation date if the employee has not given
advance notice.
mpm‘m
The definition of wages includes ”all amounts for labor perfumed by employees
of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time,
task, piece; commission basis, or other method of calculation.” Labor Code § 200(a).
Labor Code § 203 provides: ”ifan employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement
or reduction, in accordance with Sections 201, 201.3, 201.5, 202, and 205.5; a‘ny wages of an
V. '
eml-Jioyee who is dischatged or who awaithemwe—‘ges 0t the employee shall continue as a
penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action there for is
commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days.”
In this ca§e, plaintiff quit without providing a 72-hour advanced notice effective
January 12, 2018. However, plainfitf had already stopped performing any work for
so.
defendant prior to January 12, 2018. He was placed on peid leave on December 1, 2017,
hecould find another job. This was solely to the benefit of the plaintiffjnot the defendant.
Plaintiff did not perform any work to the benefit of defendant during his paid time off.
NNHHr—Ap—ar—IHHHHH
Therefore, plaintiff’s claim for waiting time penalties is unsupported by fact or law.
mumsimey—aoxooouoxmpmNp—toxooo'ua
Accordingly, plaintiff shall take nothing as waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code
Section 203.
CONCLUSIONS
For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that laintiff take nothing
by virtue of his claim.
_
I
U
N —
Dated: March 29, 2019 e1 Esp o—Tellez,
Hearing Offi er
NNN
Page 4
ORDER. DECISION, 0R AWARD OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER
(Case NO CM—489380)
Stale of California
Depamnent ofInduslrial Relations
DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL
(C.C.P. 1013A) 0R CERTIFIED MAIL
I,Madalena Quaresma, do hereby certify that I am a resident of or employed in the County of
Santa Clara, over 18'
years of age, not a party to the within action, and that I am employed at and
my business address is:
‘
LABOR COMMISSIONER, STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
100 Paseo de Sah Antonio Room 120
San Jose, CA 951 13
Tel: (408) 277-1266 Fax: (408) 277-9643
Iam readily familiar with the business practice of my place of business for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Con‘wpondence
so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the
ordinaxy course of business.
On April 8, 2019, at my place of business, a copy of the following document(s):
Order, Decision or Award
was(were) placed for deposit'in the United States Pcistal Service in a sealed envelope, by First
'
Class with postage fully prepaid, addressed to:
NOTICE TO:
Sruli Yellin,
2094 Walnut Grove Ave.
San Jose, CA 95128
'
Additional Service
Semce Addms
Addmflfi)
United Corporate Services,
Inc., a California Corporation
Fisch Sigler, LLP, a District of 6:8 UNIVtERilfi-gségf
Columbia limited
acme“ 0’
liability
partnership
John T. Battaglia, , a.k.a.
ParulerAttomey for Fisch
Sigler, LLP, a District 9f
5301 Wisconsin Ave NW
Columbia limited liability
Washington, DC 20015
palmership
and that envelope was placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary businm
WCA 66 (Rev. 3/06) Certification of Mailing '
Page 1 of 2
practices.
I certw under penalty ofp‘erjury that theforegoing‘ is true and correct. ,
Executed on April 8, 2019, at San Jose, California.
STATE-CASE NUMBER: WC-CM-489380
/s/ Madalena Quaresma
I
WCA 66 (Rev. 3/06) Certification of Mailing '
Page 2 of2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA .
For Coun Use Only:
Department of Industrial Rclations
Labor Commissioner’s Office
l00 Pasco de San An‘onio, Room 120
San Jose, CA 951 l3
Email: laborcomm.wcasjo@dir.ca'gov
Fax: (408) 277-9643
Plaintiff: Court Number: .
Sruli Yellin,an Individual
Defendant
ofColumbia
Fisch Sigler, LLP, a District limited liability pannership
Case No.: WC—CM-489380 I
ORDER, DECISION 0R AWARD 0F THE LABOR COMMISSIONER'
Tit above-entitled
l. matter came on for hearing before the Labor Commissioner of the Smte of California as follows:
DATE: November 30, 2018 CITY: 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Room 120, San Jose, CA 95113
I
2.IT IS ORDERED THAT: Plaintiff recover from Defendant:
Balance Du'e to Employee(s) InterestBalance Due Line Total
SICK LEAVE -
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
WAITING TIME PENALTIES $0.00 $0.00
'
$0.00
Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3.The herein Order, Decision or Award is based upon the Findings of Fact, Legal Analysis and Conclusions amohed
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
4.The pam'es herein are nétified and advised that this Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner shall
become final and enfomble as ajudgment in a court of law unless either or both partiesiexercise their right to
appeal to the appropriate coun‘ within ten (10) days of service ofthis document. Service ofthis docu‘nient can be
'
accomplished either by fust class mail or by persona] delivery and is effective upon mailing or at the time of personal
delivery. If service on the parties is made by mail, the ten (10) day appeal period shall be extended by five (5) days.
For parties served outside of Califomia, the period of extension is longer (See Code of Civil Procedure Section
l0 l3).[n case of appeal, the necessary filing fee must be paid by the appellant and appellant must, immediately upon
filing an appeal wim the appropriate court, serve a copy of the appeal request upon the Labor Commissioner. Ifan
appeal is filed by a corporation, a non-lawyer agent of the corpomtion may file the Notice of Appeal wid'I the
appropriate court, but die corporation must be represented in any subsequent u’ialby an anomey, licensed to practice
in the Stateof California. Labor Code Section 98.2(c) provides that if the partyseeking review by filing an appeal t6
the coun is unsuccessful in such appeal, the court shall determine the coss and reasonable attorney’s fees incuned by
the omer patty to the appeal and assess such amount as a cost upon the party filing the appeal. An em'ployee is
successful if the court awards an amount greater than zero. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: Labor Code Section 98.20))
requires that as a condition to filing an appeal ofan Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner, the
employer shall first post a bond or undertaking with the court in the amount of the ODA; and the employer shall
provide written notice to the other parties and the Labor Commissioner of the posting offlie undemking Labor Code
Section 98 2(b) also requires the undertaking contain other specific conditions for distribution under the bond While
thisclaim Isbefore the Labor Commissioner you are required to notify the Labor Commissioner' m writing of any
'
chan- u your busin 2 onal address 'within 10 days after change occurs.
’Superior Court of Califomia, County of Santa Clara
l9l North First Street
San Jose, CA 951 13
WCA 75 - Order. Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner (Rev. 9/1 S)
Preview
FOR COURT USE ONLY SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA D MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D JUSTICE COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA APR 23 2019 COUNTY 0F Santa Clara ‘ ‘ I rk of the Court. swam A my ol Santa cu: JUDICIAL DISTRICT By WM.“ . Srull Yellm DEFENDANT Fisch Sigler LLP COURT NUMBER NOTICE 0F APPEAL l 9 CV3 4 6 4‘1 5 NOTICE OF APPEAL award of the Labor Commissioner of the Order, Decision or inSlateCase Number “/C'CM '4893 80 Dated MarCh 29~ 20 I9 and served upon SW“ lhe undersigned appellant, Yelling Via ma“ ' Apr” 8- 7 ~0 I9 on .isgiven and Code Seaion pursuant to Labor filed 98.2. Appeilam anached as Exhibit “A” a copy of the Order, Decision or Award appealed and requests that the Clerk oi the Coun sel the cause for hearing before the above—entilled court. where il shall be heard de novo in accordance with Labor Code Section 98.2, and that the Clerk of the Court give Notice of time, date and place of the new trial to each of the following parties and the Labor Commissioner's office at the places listed below. Appellant certifies that a copy ot this Notice of Appeal has been sewed upon the Labor Commissioner and a copy has been mailed to the Respondent, as shown bebw. APPELLANT {OR ATTORNEY) (NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER) Sruli Yellin 900 Lafayette Street, Suite 20 | -9 Santa Clara, CA 95050 OFFICE OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER (ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) $TA1E LABOR COMMISSIONER 100 Paseo de San Antonio Room 120 San Jose, CA 951 13 408277. I 266 RESPONDENT (OR ATTORNEY) (NAME, ADDRESS VELEPHONE NUMBER) Fisch Sigler LLP 530i Wisconsin Ave NW Washington, DC 20015 ”3‘“ v/c‘b/ 20m j/Z/ W m Sm: d C&h‘ria D! mm oi law 1 Rela'wm SumaidsWW!!! / macaw LC.N B6 36611 ME 537 (REV. 3’33) NOT‘CE OF APPEAL - Engish BEFORE THE LABOR COMMISSIONER H OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SRULI YELLIN, CASE No. CM489380 Plaintiff, ORDER DECISION, 0R AWARD v. ©®V©mhmf0 OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER FISCH SIGLER, LLP, a District of Columbia limited liability parmership, Defendant. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed an initial claim with the Labor Commissioner’s office on April 10, 2018. The complaint raises the following allegatiofis: 1. Damages pursu'ant to Labor Code § 248.5(b)(3) for failure to comply with record keeping requirements on deduction statements pursuant to Labor Code §246(i), claiming $4,000.00; 2. Interest pursuant to Labor Code section 24856). 3. Waiting time penalties pursuant t9 labor Code section 203 at a daily rate of $769.23 for an indeterminate number of days not to exceed 30 days. On November 30, 2019, a hearing was conducted in the offices of the Labor gSRififitfiBBBSES’GEGSSSL‘S Commissioner in San Jose, California, before the undersigned Hearing Officer designated by the Labor Commissioner to hear this matter. Plaintiff Sruli Yellin appeared in pro per. Partner Ray William Sigler appeared on behalf of Fisch Sigler, LLP (Defendant). Due consideration having been given to the testimony, documentary evidence, and arguments presented, the Laber Commissioner hereby adopts the following Order, Decision, or Award. FINDINGS OF FACT Defendant employed Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of a written employmmt agreement as an attorney in San Jose, California, County of Santa Clara, from July 6, 2015 through January 12, 2018. Defendant is a law firm shedalizing in pateht litigation. Page 1 ORDER. DECISION. OR AWARD OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER (Case No. CM-489386) Plaintiff brings a claim for violation of the Healthy Families Act of 2014. Plaintiff I claimed that defendant failed to provide him with paystubs which reflect the amount of paid sick leave available, or paid time off leave provided in lieu of sick leave, for use. Plaintiff claimed damages pursuant to Labor Code § 248.5(b)(3) for failure to comply with record keeping requirements on deduétion statements pursuant to Labor \ooo:\xoxcnu>mN.—A Code §246(i). Defendant argued that, upon hire, plaintiff received a copy of itsVacation and Sick Leave Policy for Attorneys, which provides for unlimited sick leave. The policy encourages ' emfil'oyees to "take firhe off as cbnsistéht With their work obligations and necessary to have a health work-life balance.” Plaintiff conceded that he received and understood this policy. Plaintiff also conceded that he did not suffer any damage or monetary loss as a result of not having sick leave accrual reflected on his itemized wage eaming statement In addition, defendant represented that it requested its payroll vendor to includa ”unlimited” as a line item on the paystubs to comply with §246(i), but the vendor informed defendant itcould not provide such a notation on paychecks. Concerning NNp—AHHv—AHHp—Ir—IHH plaintiff’s claim for waiting time penalties, defendant represented that the plaintiff had engaged in inappropriate behavior towards a female job applicant on ‘ October 16, 2017, which led to defendant having to hire outside counsel to address the issues caused by plaintiff’s conduct. Plaintiff was banned from the office and returned on December 1 to meet with defendant to discuss the next step. Rather than terminating him gfigbfifiwBHoomqmmpmmpo I on the spot, defendant placed plaintifton a four-week paid leave period during whichhe' would not have to pertorm any work and instead use the time to find another full-time job.‘ Plaintiff requested, and defendant granted, an additional week of paid employment because of a planned vacation with his family at the end'of December 2017, for a total of' I ' five weeks paid. At die close of the five-week period plaintiff requested another extension, and defendant agreed to contimie to employ him for an additional week at half pay. On January 10, 2018, plaintiff informed-defendant he was resigning his position effecfive January 12,. 2018. Plaintiff received the final agreed upon payment via direct deposit on January 15, Page 2 ORDER. DECISION, 0R AWARD OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER - . (Case No. CM—489380) H 2018. N LEGAL ANALYSIS 0-) Plaintiff, as tl;1eparty asserting the affirmafive,‘has the Burden of proof including )b the initial burden of going forward and thé burden of persuasion by.a preponderance of U1 ‘the evidence; Evidénce Code §§ 115 and 500.‘ 0‘ "'An'employer shall provide an employee with written notice that sets forth the amount of paid sick leave available, or paid fime off lea‘ve an employer provides in lieu of m,“ sick leave, for use afi-eitfier 'the emfiiovyee’s itefifized wage statement described in Section \O 226 or in a separate writing provided on the designated pay date with the employee’s - payment of wages.” Labor Code § 246(i). Failure to comply with Lahor Code Section 246(i) may result in a penalty assessment of $4,000.00 per Labor Code § 2485(b)(3). Labor Code § 246(h) provides: ”An employer shall not be assessed any penalty or hquidhted damages under this article due to an isolated and unintentional payroll error or written notice errdr that is a clexical o_r an inadvertent mistake regarding the accrual or I available use of paid sick leave.” It further states, ”In reviewing for compliance with fltis NNHHHp—AHHHflp—«H section, the ‘factfinder may consider as a relevant factor whether the employer, prior to an alleged violation, has adopted and is in compliance with a set of policiee, procedures, . and practices that fully comply with this section”. [Emphasis added] 1n the interim cage, defendant offered plaintiff, and its employees, unlimited sick leave. Pleinfiff acknowledged that he understood and benefited from this policy. Plainfiff did not suffer any damage or monetary loss as a result of not having sick leave accrual reflected on his itemized wage earning statements. Defendant tried, unsuccessfully, to have a line item for sick leave reflected on paychecks inprder to comply with § 246(i). The - finding is defendant had a set of policies, procedures, and took necessary steps to fully 5% comply with this section. Accordingly, plaintiff shall take nothing as sick leave penalty per Labor Code 248.5(h)(3). I WVO\ NNN Labor Code Secfion 202 requires the employer to pay all outstanding wages on flie last day of employment when the employee has given 72 hours advance noh'ce of their Page 3 ORDER. DECISlON, OR AWARD 0F THE LABOR COMMISSIONER (Case No. CM—489386) H intention to quit, or within 72 hours of the separation date if the employee has not given advance notice. mpm‘m The definition of wages includes ”all amounts for labor perfumed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece; commission basis, or other method of calculation.” Labor Code § 200(a). Labor Code § 203 provides: ”ifan employer willfully fails to pay, without abatement or reduction, in accordance with Sections 201, 201.3, 201.5, 202, and 205.5; a‘ny wages of an V. ' eml-Jioyee who is dischatged or who awaithemwe—‘ges 0t the employee shall continue as a penalty from the due date thereof at the same rate until paid or until an action there for is commenced; but the wages shall not continue for more than 30 days.” In this ca§e, plaintiff quit without providing a 72-hour advanced notice effective January 12, 2018. However, plainfitf had already stopped performing any work for so. defendant prior to January 12, 2018. He was placed on peid leave on December 1, 2017, hecould find another job. This was solely to the benefit of the plaintiffjnot the defendant. Plaintiff did not perform any work to the benefit of defendant during his paid time off. NNHHr—Ap—ar—IHHHHH Therefore, plaintiff’s claim for waiting time penalties is unsupported by fact or law. mumsimey—aoxooouoxmpmNp—toxooo'ua Accordingly, plaintiff shall take nothing as waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 203. CONCLUSIONS For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that laintiff take nothing by virtue of his claim. _ I U N — Dated: March 29, 2019 e1 Esp o—Tellez, Hearing Offi er NNN Page 4 ORDER. DECISION, 0R AWARD OF THE LABOR COMMISSIONER (Case NO CM—489380) Stale of California Depamnent ofInduslrial Relations DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL (C.C.P. 1013A) 0R CERTIFIED MAIL I,Madalena Quaresma, do hereby certify that I am a resident of or employed in the County of Santa Clara, over 18' years of age, not a party to the within action, and that I am employed at and my business address is: ‘ LABOR COMMISSIONER, STATE 0F CALIFORNIA 100 Paseo de Sah Antonio Room 120 San Jose, CA 951 13 Tel: (408) 277-1266 Fax: (408) 277-9643 Iam readily familiar with the business practice of my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Con‘wpondence so collected and processed is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinaxy course of business. On April 8, 2019, at my place of business, a copy of the following document(s): Order, Decision or Award was(were) placed for deposit'in the United States Pcistal Service in a sealed envelope, by First ' Class with postage fully prepaid, addressed to: NOTICE TO: Sruli Yellin, 2094 Walnut Grove Ave. San Jose, CA 95128 ' Additional Service Semce Addms Addmflfi) United Corporate Services, Inc., a California Corporation Fisch Sigler, LLP, a District of 6:8 UNIVtERilfi-gségf Columbia limited acme“ 0’ liability partnership John T. Battaglia, , a.k.a. ParulerAttomey for Fisch Sigler, LLP, a District 9f 5301 Wisconsin Ave NW Columbia limited liability Washington, DC 20015 palmership and that envelope was placed for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary businm WCA 66 (Rev. 3/06) Certification of Mailing ' Page 1 of 2 practices. I certw under penalty ofp‘erjury that theforegoing‘ is true and correct. , Executed on April 8, 2019, at San Jose, California. STATE-CASE NUMBER: WC-CM-489380 /s/ Madalena Quaresma I WCA 66 (Rev. 3/06) Certification of Mailing ' Page 2 of2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA . For Coun Use Only: Department of Industrial Rclations Labor Commissioner’s Office l00 Pasco de San An‘onio, Room 120 San Jose, CA 951 l3 Email: laborcomm.wcasjo@dir.ca'gov Fax: (408) 277-9643 Plaintiff: Court Number: . Sruli Yellin,an Individual Defendant ofColumbia Fisch Sigler, LLP, a District limited liability pannership Case No.: WC—CM-489380 I ORDER, DECISION 0R AWARD 0F THE LABOR COMMISSIONER' Tit above-entitled l. matter came on for hearing before the Labor Commissioner of the Smte of California as follows: DATE: November 30, 2018 CITY: 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Room 120, San Jose, CA 95113 I 2.IT IS ORDERED THAT: Plaintiff recover from Defendant: Balance Du'e to Employee(s) InterestBalance Due Line Total SICK LEAVE - $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 WAITING TIME PENALTIES $0.00 $0.00 ' $0.00 Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 3.The herein Order, Decision or Award is based upon the Findings of Fact, Legal Analysis and Conclusions amohed hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 4.The pam'es herein are nétified and advised that this Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner shall become final and enfomble as ajudgment in a court of law unless either or both partiesiexercise their right to appeal to the appropriate coun‘ within ten (10) days of service ofthis document. Service ofthis docu‘nient can be ' accomplished either by fust class mail or by persona] delivery and is effective upon mailing or at the time of personal delivery. If service on the parties is made by mail, the ten (10) day appeal period shall be extended by five (5) days. For parties served outside of Califomia, the period of extension is longer (See Code of Civil Procedure Section l0 l3).[n case of appeal, the necessary filing fee must be paid by the appellant and appellant must, immediately upon filing an appeal wim the appropriate court, serve a copy of the appeal request upon the Labor Commissioner. Ifan appeal is filed by a corporation, a non-lawyer agent of the corpomtion may file the Notice of Appeal wid'I the appropriate court, but die corporation must be represented in any subsequent u’ialby an anomey, licensed to practice in the Stateof California. Labor Code Section 98.2(c) provides that if the partyseeking review by filing an appeal t6 the coun is unsuccessful in such appeal, the court shall determine the coss and reasonable attorney’s fees incuned by the omer patty to the appeal and assess such amount as a cost upon the party filing the appeal. An em'ployee is successful if the court awards an amount greater than zero. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: Labor Code Section 98.20)) requires that as a condition to filing an appeal ofan Order, Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner, the employer shall first post a bond or undertaking with the court in the amount of the ODA; and the employer shall provide written notice to the other parties and the Labor Commissioner of the posting offlie undemking Labor Code Section 98 2(b) also requires the undertaking contain other specific conditions for distribution under the bond While thisclaim Isbefore the Labor Commissioner you are required to notify the Labor Commissioner' m writing of any ' chan- u your busin 2 onal address 'within 10 days after change occurs. ’Superior Court of Califomia, County of Santa Clara l9l North First Street San Jose, CA 951 13 WCA 75 - Order. Decision or Award of the Labor Commissioner (Rev. 9/1 S)