Legal Opinion
Martinez v. Combs
California Supreme Court
Decided June 9, 2010No. S121552PublishedCited by 301 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WERDEGAR, J.
Plaintiffs, seasonal agricultural workers, brought this action under Labor Code section 1194 1 and other theories to recover unpaid minimum wages. Plaintiffs contend the Industrial Welfare Commission’s (IWC) wage order No. 14-2001, entitled “Order Regulating Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions in Agricultural Occupations” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11140), commonly known as Wage Order No. 14, defines defendants as their employers for purposes of section 1194. The lower courts rejected the argument. We affirm.
I. Background
This case arises out of the strawberry farming…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Rutherford Food Corp. v. McCombSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- United States v. SilkSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by301 opinions
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.California Supreme Court · 2018
- Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn.California Supreme Court · 2014
- Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2014
- ZB, N.A. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
296 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.