Total Articles: 33
SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES ADMINISTRATIVE EXEMPTION
California employers’ decisions to classify workers as “exempt†from overtime and other wage-hours laws are among the most commonly litigated claims. There is ample ground for disputes between lawyers and their clients. Determining whether an employee is properly classified as exempt is fact-specific and requires applying vague and confusing laws and regulations.
Recruiter Qualified under California Commissioned Salesperson Exemption, Not Entitled to Overtime
Ruling a recruiter was a commissioned salesperson because his job involved sales and his compensation was based on those sales, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, has rejected an employee’s claims for unpaid overtime against his employer on behalf of himself and a class of current and former employees. Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp., Nos. D057995 & D058958 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2012). The Court found the employee was exempt from overtime pay under California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7-2001 and affirmed judgment in favor of the employer.
California Supreme Court Addresses Administrative Exemption Favors Employers, But Leaves Unanswered Questions
When an employer classifies a group of employees as exempt under state and federal wage and hour law, that decision is subject to challenge by the employees or a government agency. The wrong decision can result in expensive litigation and huge liability to the employer. The administrative exemption is perhaps the hardest to understand and apply. In a recent case titled Harris v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court made a ruling favorable to employers, but it left a number of unanswered questions regarding the administrative exemption.
California Supreme Court Clarifies Administrative Exemption
The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision rejecting the lower court's interpretation of the "administrative exemption."
The Ninth Circuit Confirms California Overtime Laws Apply To Nonresidents
Executive Summary: On December 13, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued its second opinion in the Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation case and confirmed that nonresident employees are subject to California's overtime laws when they perform work in California. This is a significant ruling for employers with nationwide operations because employers are required to comply with California labor laws even if those employees only work temporarily in California.
Pre-Bar Admission Law Grads Can Be Exempt
Matthew Zelasko-Barrett graduated law school and obtained a job with Brayton-Purcell, a large, Marin County firm. Before passing the bar and becoming a licensed lawyer, he was designated a Law Clerk II; after admission he became an associate. After quitting, he decided to sue Brayton-Purcell, claiming he was "mis-classified" as exempt during his time as a Law Clerk II.
California Overtime Laws Extended To Visiting Employees
A unanimous California Supreme Court recently held that California-based employers must pay out-of-state resident employees pursuant to the more restrictive provisions of the California Labor Code even if these employees only visit the state on a limited, temporary basis. The unanimous decision held that the state's overtime laws were intended by the California legislature to apply broadly to "protect" workers visiting California (even temporarily); therefore, California's laws trump the laws of states in which employees actually reside and primarily work.
California Supreme Court: Nonresident-Employees Entitled to State Overtime When Working in State
Nonresidents of California are entitled to overtime pay under state law for work performed in California, the California Supreme Court has held, answering questions about California law at the request of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 4th 1191 (Cal. 2011).
California-Based Employers Required to Pay Nonresident Employees for Overtime Worked in California
On June 30, 2011, the California Supreme Court in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. decided that California's overtime law covers certain overtime worked in California by nonresident employees of California-based employers.
OUT OF STATE WORKERS MUST BE PAID CALIFORNIA OVERTIME PAY FOR WORK PERFORMED IN CALIFORNIA
The California Supreme Court has expanded the reach of our state's overtime pay laws, which are among the toughest and costliest in the nation. In a case involving software maker Oracle Corporation, the court ruled that these protections extend to any out-of-state resident who works in California even for just one full day.
Unlicensed Professionals Might Qualify For White Collar Exemption?
California’s professional exemption covers certain licensed professionals such as accountants, lawyers and doctors. Does that mean that an unlicensed professional cannot qualify for this white collar exemption? Not necessarily. A federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal recently ruled that unlicensed accountants might qualify as exempt employees in a case titled Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC. The same rationale may apply to other unlicensed professionals.
STAY HOME! Non-Residents Entitled to California Overtime Protection While There, California Supreme Court Rules
While California is mired in a $25 billion budget deficit, and companies are leaving for greener, business-friendlier pastures like Arizona, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina, the California Supreme Court is doing its best to pile on the regulatory burdens that hurt this state’s ability to compete on a national and global scale. In Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation, the California Supreme Court held that non-resident employees who perform work in this state, even for periods as short as a single day, are protected by California’s overtime laws.
California Supreme Court Expands Reach Of State Overtime Laws
On June 30, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled that work performed in California by nonresident employees for California-based employers is covered by the California Labor Code and its unfair competition laws. That means that employees residing in states outside California but working (even occasionally) in California may bring lawsuits against their California employers for unfair competition based on violations of California's generous overtime requirements. This is not good news for employers.
California Supreme Court: Out of State Employers Bound by California Overtime Law...
Sullivan v. Oracle is a wage hour class action we addressed here. If you don't remember, you're forgiven. This was back in 2008. I had more and darker hair; Lehman Brothers was a functioning company. You could buy a Pontiac. Remember?
Do California State Overtime Laws Apply to Visiting Workers?
Do you have employees who visit California for business? If so, now may be a good time to brush up on California wage and hour law. On June 30, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled that the California Labor Code's overtime provisions applied to three non-resident employees of Oracle Corporation who performed work within the state.
California Supreme Court Extends Reach of State’s Wage and Hour Laws to Out-Of-State Employees Temporarily Working Within the State
On June 30, 2011, a unanimous California Supreme Court ruled that California-based employers must pay out-of-state resident employees pursuant to the more restrictive provisions of the California Labor Code even if these employees visit the state on a limited, temporary basis. The unanimous decision held that the state’s overtime laws were intended by the California legislature to apply broadly to “protect†workers visiting California even temporarily and, therefore, this state’s laws trump the laws from the states in which employees actually reside and primarily work. Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., No. S170577, California Supreme Court (June 30, 2011).
Unlicensed Accountants May be Entitled to Overtime under California Law, Federal Court Rules
Reversing summary judgment for more than 2,000 unlicensed junior accountants in a class action lawsuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco) has held that the plaintiff-accountants were not “categorically ineligible†to be exempt from overtime under California’s professional and administrative exemptions. Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, No. 09-16370 (9th Cir. June 15, 2011). The Court ruled the district court erred in determining the unlicensed accountants, who were required by law to work under the supervision of a licensed accountant, could never meet the requirements for exempt employees. The Court warned against categorically excluding entire classes of employees from overtime exemption analyses.
Car Dealer Defeats Overtime Claim By Commissioned Salesperson.
California’s Labor Code allows for an overtime exemption for commissioned salespersons. One requirement for this exemption is that the employee is paid on a commission basis. Commonly, “commission†means a percentage of the sales price, but is that necessarily so? A California appellate court recently examined the meaning of “commission†in a case titled Areso v. Carmax.
Non-Exempt Employees Can Agree To A Salary That Includes Overtime
A California appellate court ruled that Labor Code section 515 does not outlaw clear wage agreements that provide for salaries that include fixed amounts of overtime. Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc.
California Court Rules Employer Not Required to Pay Overtime under Explicit Mutual Wage Agreement
A California employer did not owe overtime to an employee because it had entered into an explicit mutual wage agreement that provided for base compensation and overtime in one lump sum, the California Court of Appeal has ruled. Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc., No. B218171 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2011). Affirming the dismissal of the employee’s claim, the Court upheld the validity of explicit mutual wage agreements for non-exempt employees under California law.
Annual Bonuses: Are They Factored Into Overtime?
Many employers question whether annual bonuses must be considered in overtime compensation. Although California law has more protective overtime laws than most states, it sticks with federal law with regard to what is included in the "regular rate" when calculating overtime. Federal law requires "all remuneration" to be included in the regular rate except for seven specified types of payments. Among these excludable payments are discretionary bonuses, gifts and payments in the nature of gifts on special occasions, contributions by the employer to certain welfare plans and payments made by the employer pursuant to certain profit-sharing, thrift and savings plans.
New California DLSE Opinion Letter Supports Employers' Temporary Schedule and Salary Reductions for Exempt Employees for Cost Cutting Purposes.
On August 19, 2009, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE") issued an important Opinion Letter for California employers (the "8/19/09 OL"), finding that an employer's temporary schedule and salary reductions for exempt employees remains consistent with the salary basis test when implemented to cut costs.
Federal Court Withdraws Decision Awarding Overtime to Non-Residents Who Work In California.
As we reported in our last issue (California Wage/Hour Update, No. 1, January 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently ruled that the overtime provisions of California's Labor Code apply to work performed in California by non-resident employees. Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation.
Federal Decision Awards Overtime to Non-Residents Performing Work in California.
A federal appeals court recently handed down a significant decision addressing the application of the overtime provisions of California's Labor Code to work performed in California by non-resident employees. The case has important consequences for employers who hire non-residents to perform work in California Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation.
The Explosion of Overtime Claims (Part 2).
In our last issue we looked at some of the most important timekeeping problems that employers should be aware of, in order to keep from being engulfed in the virtual tsunami of overtime claims being filed in recent years.
State Reduces Thresholds for California Computer Professionals' Overtime Exemption: Changes Take Effect Immediately.
Last week Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger approved an amendment substantially changing the law concerning overtime pay for certain computer software professionals. The law amends the California Labor Code and restores the overtime exemption for qualifying computer programmers, analysts and engineers who are paid a monthly salary equivalent to at least $75,000 per year, or who continue to be paid at least $36 per hour for all hours worked. The bill was passed as urgency legislation and took effect on September 30, 2008.
Amendment to California Law Eliminates Overtime Pay for Certain Computer Software Employees.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed into law an amendment of California's Labor Code, which provides that employees in the computer software field are not entitled to overtime pay if they meet certain requirements. Under AB 10, employees in the computer software field are not entitled to overtime pay if they earn at least $36.00 per hour or have an annual salary of not less than $75,000 for full-time employment, which is paid at least once a month and in a monthly amount of not less than $6,250.
The Explosion of Overtime Claims (Part 1)
Employers in California are still being pummeled with claims by current and former employees seeking compensation for allegedly unpaid overtime. Employers should tackle this problem by conducting self-audits and improving internal procedures for eliminating overtime complaints. The fact is, many overtime claims have identifiable causes and are completely avoidable.
Wage & Hour Update: Employer Wins Holiday Pay Lawsuit
When you are oo-ing and ah-ing at fireworks this weekend, remember that some people have to miss the show because of a work shift.
Court Affirms: Holiday Pay Premiums May Be Credited Toward Overtime Obligations.
California law sets out basic overtime requirements for non-exempt employees in California. Among other things, the law requires an employer to pay an employee time and one-half of the employee's regular rate of pay for both 1) more than 8 hours of work in one workday, and2) more than 40 hours of work in any workweek. A double time premium is required for hours in excess of 12 in a work day, or in excess of 8 hours on the seventh consecutive day of work in a work week.
Alternative Workweeks.
California has a narrow exception to the general rules on overtime pay with regard to alternative workweeks.
Managers' Overtime Claim Cannot Proceed As Class Action.
In a very important ruling for all California employers, a state appeals court has held that a case seeking back overtime pay for hundreds of store managers and assistant managers is not suitable for class action treatment because of the variation in the job duties of the claimants.
State's Tougher Overtime Calculation Method Must Be Used Unless Federal Method Produces Even Higher Rates.
Discusses Lujan v. Southern California Gas Company, in which the court held that the State's more employee-friendly standards regarding how overtime pay is calculated are enforceable, and must be used, unless the federal standard under the FLSA produces even higher pay.
