Brewer v. Premier Golf Properties (Labor and Employment)
Filed December 3, 2008, Fourth District, Division One
Cite as 2008 SOS 6530

Christine Brewer was a former employee of Premier Golf Properties. She sued the company for multiple Labor Code violations and other causes of action. The violations included meal and rest break, pay stub and minimum wage law violations, as well as unpaid regular and overtime wages.

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Brewer on her Labor Code claims, awarding her both unpaid wages and various statutory penalties. The jury also awarded Brewer $195,000 in punitive damages, which was subsequently reduced to $75,000.

The court of appeal reversed in part, holding that Brewer was not entitled to punitive damages.

Further, the court explained that under the so-called “new right-exclusive remedy” doctrine, where a statute creates new rights and obligations not previously existing in the common law, the express statutory remedy is generally the exclusive remedy available for statutory violations. This doctrine barred an award of punitive damages in this case.

The court also found that Labor Code sections 226 and 1197.1, which regulates pay stubs and minimum wages, respectively, both create new rights and obligations not previously existing in the common law.

In addition, these statutes provide express statutory remedies, including penalties, that are available when an employer has violated those provisions. Both statutes thus come within the ambit of the new right-exclusive remedy doctrine.

Similarly, the court also found that the regulations requiring employers “to provide meal breaks and rest breaks, and providing numerous forms of remedies for their violation”, also appear to have created new rights and obligations not previously existing in the common law.

Further, the statutory scheme provides a comprehensive and detailed remedial scheme for the enforcement of those regulations. Because no such specialized rights and remedies existed at common law, the remedies provided in the statute are exclusive, the court found.

Moreover, even if the remedies provided by the statutory scheme were not the exclusive remedies for the new rights, punitive damages would nevertheless be unavailable because punitive damages are ordinarily limited to actions not arising from contract. Because Brewer’s claims for unpaid wages and meal/rest breaks arose from rights based on her employment contract, punitive damages were not available.

The Fourth Appellate District therefore reversed in part a judgment, holding that punitive damages were not available against an employer for meal and rest break violations.