## Facts

- California’s In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program provides in-home services to eligible elderly and disabled recipients under a statutory and regulatory scheme implemented locally.
- Adelina Tapia Guerrero worked as an IHSS provider in Sonoma County for recipient Alejandra Buenrostro from November 4, 2008 to January 29, 2009.
- Guerrero alleged she performed IHSS work but was not paid for any services rendered.
- Guerrero alleged Sonoma County and the Sonoma County IHSS Public Authority, along with the recipient, functioned as “joint employers” because the governmental entities established and monitored IHSS providers’ wages, hours, and working conditions through statutes, regulations, and local ordinances.
- Guerrero sued for unpaid wages and overtime under the FLSA, California Labor Code provisions, Welfare and Institutions Code provisions governing IHSS, and IWC Wage Order No. 15-2001.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the IHSS statutory scheme and IWC Wage Order No. 15-2001, a county and IHSS public authority may qualify as “employers” (including joint employers) of IHSS providers for wage-and-hour purposes.
2. Whether the trial court erred at the demurrer stage by determining, as a matter of law, that the county and public authority were not employers and by sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend to unpaid-wage and overtime causes of action.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted writ relief and held the trial court erred in ruling, as a matter of law on demurrer, that the county and public authority were not employers for purposes of IWC Wage Order No. 15-2001.
- The court directed issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate requiring the superior court to vacate the order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend as to the unpaid-wage and overtime causes of action and to vacate the judgment for the county and public authority.
- The superior court was ordered to enter a new order overruling the demurrer, allowing the wage-and-hour claims to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Under IWC wage orders, “employer” is defined broadly to include entities that directly or indirectly exercise control over wages, hours, or working conditions; the concept can extend beyond a single employing entity.
- Employer status for wage-order claims is a functional, control-based inquiry and may include governmental entities that administer programs in ways that affect wages, hours, or working conditions.
- At the pleading stage, a court may not foreclose wage-order employer status as a matter of law where the allegations, read with the governing statutory framework, plausibly indicate such control.
- Granting demurrer without leave to amend is improper where the complaint states facts that, if proven, could establish liability under the wage order.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that Guerrero’s allegations and the IHSS framework were sufficient to proceed on the theory that Sonoma County and the IHSS Public Authority could be employers under Wage Order No. 15-2001, and it required the superior court to overrule the demurrer and vacate the judgment dismissing her unpaid-wage and overtime claims.


Guerrero v. Superior Court, 213 Cal. App. 4th 912, 153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 315 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)