00,000 across the three entities—but collection proved difficult because the companies lacked funds. He then focused on Lampert personally, arguing that failure to pay wages converted Voris’s personal property and that Lampert was individually liable for that tort.
The trial court rejected the wage-conversion theory. The Court of Appeal agreed that unpaid wages are not subject to conversion (while allowing stock-conversion claims to proceed). The California Supreme Court granted review.
What the Supreme Court Held
Justice Kruger, writing for the majority, held that a conversion claim is not cognizable for unpaid wages. Key points:
- Conversion protects ownership of property—not simple debts. The tort requires (1) ownership or a right to possession of personal property, (2) the defendant’s disposition of that property inconsistent with the plaintiff’s rights, and (3) resulting damages. A bare failure to pay money owed is ordinarily not conversion.
- Unpaid wages are a debt, not converted property. Until wages are paid, the employee typically has a contractual or statutory right to be paid—not a possessory interest in a specific, identifiable fund that the employer has wrongfully taken.
- Existing wage remedies are the proper fit. The Labor Code already provides a comprehensive scheme for recovering unpaid wages, waiting-time penalties, interest, attorney fees, and related relief. Expanding conversion would overlay a strict-liability tort (with possible punitive and emotional-distress damages) onto that system without clear legislative authorization.
- Conversion is not a shortcut to personal liability. Voris sought conversion partly to reach Lampert individually after alter ego claims failed and company judgments went unpaid. The Court declined to stretch the tort for that purpose.
The Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s rejection of the wage-conversion claim. (Stock-conversion claims were not before the Supreme Court and are a separate issue.)
Justice Cuéllar dissented, joined by Justice Liu, arguing that wages can qualify as property subject to conversion and that recognizing the tort would better deter wage theft.
Why This Matters
Voris closes a door that some plaintiffs used to reframe wage nonpayment as conversion—especially to pursue individual officers, punitive damages, or emotional distress. It does not reduce employees’ core wage rights. California still offers strong statutory and contractual paths for unpaid wages, including claims under Labor Code provisions such as section 1194, waiting-time penalties, and broader wage theft enforcement.
For employers and founders, the decision reinforces that personal liability for unpaid wages generally turns on alter ego, Labor Code officer-liability statutes, or other established theories—not a free-floating conversion claim for every missed paycheck.
Practical Takeaways
- You generally cannot sue for unpaid wages as “conversion” in California after Voris.
- Use Labor Code wage claims, contract claims, and related statutory penalties instead—those remain the primary remedies.
- Trying to reach an individual officer usually requires alter ego proof, a specific Labor Code personal-liability theory, or another recognized path—not conversion of unpaid wages.
- Stock or other identifiable property claims can raise different conversion issues; Voris’s holding is about unpaid wages as a debt.
- If companies are judgment-proof, focus early on collectability, bond, and proper defendants—not on reframing wages as converted property.
If you are owed wages and need help choosing the right claims, contact Jonny Law. This post is general information only and is not legal advice about any specific case.
Case: Voris v. Lampert (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1141 (Cal. Aug. 15, 2019), No. S241812. Read the court opinion.
