Diaz v. Rescare, Inc et.al.

Background

Susana Diaz brought a proposed wage-and-hour class action against Rescare, Inc. and RSCR California, Inc. Diaz alleged that the defendants failed to provide meal and rest periods, minimum and overtime wages, vacation pay, sick days, expense reimbursement, accurate wage statements, and final wages. The motion addressed only her fifth claim: a standalone claim alleging violations of California’s Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, which is codified in California Labor Code sections 245 through 249.

Diaz alleged that the defendants failed to compensate her and proposed class members for accrued sick days taken for permitted reasons. She sought restitution for unpaid sick leave and attorneys’ fees.

Parties’ Arguments

The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). They argued that the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act does not create a private right of action—that is, a right allowing an individual to sue directly under that statute.

Diaz argued that a private litigant could enforce the statute through another state law. She identified California’s Unfair Competition Law and California Labor Code section 203, which permits an employee to seek waiting-time penalties for certain unpaid wages, including unpaid sick leave, as possible vehicles for enforcement.

The defendants also argued in their reply brief that Diaz’s Unfair Competition Law claim could not be based on alleged violations of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act. The court declined to consider that argument because the defendants raised it for the first time in reply.

Court’s Analysis

The court examined California Labor Code section 248.5(e), which addresses enforcement of the paid-sick-leave law. The provision authorizes the Labor Commissioner and the Attorney General to bring civil actions and also refers to a person or entity enforcing the law on behalf of the public under applicable state law. The court understood that language to allow a private litigant to bring an enforcement action when another applicable state law provides the vehicle for the claim.

The court concluded that Diaz had not identified authority establishing that a standalone claim under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act—rather than a claim brought through another state law—was legally cognizable. It therefore agreed with the defendants that the standalone claim failed as a matter of law.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding Diaz’s standalone Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act claim, which was the fifth claim in the First Amended Complaint. The court granted Diaz LEAVE TO AMEND so she could state a claim arising from the alleged denial of paid sick leave under another applicable statute, including potentially California Labor Code section 233. The order did not dispose of the other claims.