California Court of Appeal Affirms Strict Jurisdictional Deadline for Appeals of Labor Commissioner Decisions

Quick Hits

• The California Court of Appeal affirmed that the statutory deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision is mandatory and jurisdictional, with no exceptions for late filings due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, except in cases of fraud.
• The court rejected the application of equitable tolling for filing deadlines in Labor Commissioner appeals, even in cases of electronic filing errors, emphasizing that strict adherence to time limits ensures prompt wage payment and discourages frivolous appeals.
• Employers must comply with both the notice of appeal and undertaking requirements within the statutory deadline to preserve their right to judicial review, as a failure to do so deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Background

The case arose from a wage claim filed by a former employee, resulting in a Labor Commissioner’s award of $74,419.82 against the employer for unpaid overtime and other violations. The Labor Commissioner’s decision was served by mail, triggering a fifteen-day deadline for the employer to file an appeal to the superior court under Labor Code section 98.2. The employer attempted to file the notice of appeal and a motion for waiver of the undertaking requirement on the last day of the deadline, but the electronic filing was rejected by the court clerk. The documents were subsequently filed in person the following day, rendering the appeal one day late.

The trial court found the appeal untimely and denied the employer’s motion for waiver of the undertaking requirement, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

Key Holdings

Jurisdictional deadline for appeals. The Court of Appeal affirmed that the statutory deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision is both mandatory and jurisdictional. The court cited long-standing precedent holding that late filings may not be excused on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, with the sole exception being fraud, which was not alleged in this case.

No equitable tolling. The employer argued that the deadline should be subject to equitable tolling, due to a third-party filing error, and cited California Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, which provides for tolling in certain instances of electronic filing rejections. The court rejected this argument, finding that the statute applies only to complaints and cross-complaints, not to notices of appeal from Labor Commissioner decisions or motions to waive undertaking requirements. The court further noted that the statutory scheme and controlling case law require strict adherence to the time limits to promote prompt payment of wages and discourage frivolous appeals.

Undertaking requirement. The decision reiterates that when an employer pursues an appeal, “it must first post an undertaking in the amount of the challenged award” or seek a waiver within the same statutory deadline as the appeal. Failure to comply with either requirement within the prescribed period deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Attorney conduct and publication. The court declined to impose sanctions for a frivolous appeal but published the decision to clarify the law and remind attorneys of their obligation to candidly address the controlling legal authority and properly develop their arguments.

Key Takeaways

This decision serves as a reminder to employers and counsel of the importance of meeting statutory deadlines in Labor Commissioner appeals, as well as the limited grounds for excusing untimely filings.

There are several instructive points to appreciate from this case:

• The deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision to the superior court is strictly enforced and jurisdictional; late filings will not be excused except in cases of fraud.
• Equitable tolling does not apply to the statutory deadline for filing appeals or motions to waive undertaking requirements in Labor Commissioner proceedings, even where electronic filing errors might have occurred.
• Employers must ensure timely compliance with both the notice of appeal and undertaking requirements to preserve their right to judicial review.
• The decision reinforces the importance of prompt wage payment and the legislative intent of discouraging delay and frivolous appeals in wage claim proceedings.

Ogletree Deakins’ California offices and Wage and Hour Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the California and Wage and Hour blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts