Overtime Exemptions in California

The general Demurrer (ROA # 312) of Defendant 22ND DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION ("Defendant" or "DAA") to the first, and only, cause of action contained in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") of Plaintiffs JOSE LUIS MORALES, and ROES 1 through 100, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated ("Plaintiffs"), on the grounds the first cause of action for failure to pay overtime compensation fails as a matter of law because the DAA is exempt from state overtime requirements under Labor Code

Defendant also notes that in the instant action, Plaintiff alleges that when he and other current and former aggrieved California-based hourly non-exempt employees earned overtime wages, Defendants failed to pay them overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of pay due to Defendants failure to include all remuneration when calculating the overtime rate of pay.

The Sonico action is brought: "on behalf of all current and former California Non-Exempt Employees of Defendants." (ROA 2 at ¶ 49). The Paredes action alleges: "Plaintiff was not paid the wages due and owing to him, including overtime wages for all hours/overtime hours worked, wages from missed meal and rest breaks owed pursuant to LC 226.7 for meal periods not provided and/or rest breaks not authorized and permitted, and unlawful deductions from his commissions.

The parties do not dispute that the proposed Hourly Employee Class and UCL Class in Meadows completely subsume the proposed class of non-exempt nurses in this matter. Their dispute centers on how much the underlying allegations overlap. Plaintiff argues this case is primarily an overtime action based on a 3/12 shift structure, while Meadows makes only general allegations about unpaid overtime and does not contain an overtime cause of action.

Defendant contends that plaintiff is making a claim to overtime compensation under 8 CCR § 11040-3. Plaintiff says she is making a minimum wage claim under 8 CCR § 11040-4. If plaintiff is making an overtime claim, defendant County is exempt as set forth in 8 CCR § 11040-1(B). Under the same provision, defendant County is not exempt from minimum wage claims. Defendant argues that plaintiff is making an overtime claim because she is seeking compensation for hours worked in excess of 8 in a day.

ISSUE NO. 1: PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME COMPENSATION (CA. LAB. CODE § 510) FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW (Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 1 to 138) The elements of a cause of action for failure to pay overtime are: (1) plaintiff performed work for defendant; (2) plaintiff worked overtime hours; (2) plaintiff was not paid and/or paid less than the overtime rate for some or all of the overtime hours worked; (4) the amount of overtime pay owed.

Although plaintiff and the other managers were rendered non-exempt, they were allegedly denied Labor Code compliant rest and meal break periods and were not paid for overtime hours worked. On May 28, 2021, plaintiff filed his complaint on behalf of himself individually and in his representative capacity under PAGA for failure to pay wages when due (Lab. Code §204), pay overtime wages (Lab. Code §510), provide meal periods and rest breaks (Lab.

Among other things, the discovery required RFI to provide the number of exempt and non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant during the liability period, the number of pay periods in which non-exempt employees earned overtime and shift differential pay in the same pay period, and the number of total pay periods during the liability period. RFI was also required to produce relevant policies, including those concerning the timing of its payment of wages and its calculation of overtime pay rates.

As this cause of action is dependent upon Plaintiff’s status as a non-exempt employee entitled to overtime wages, and there are triable issues of fact as to whether Plaintiff was a non-exempt or exempt employee, motion for summary adjudication of this cause of action is DENIED. E. Fifth Cause of Action – Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200: This cause of action is dependent upon Plaintiff’s status as an exempt employee entitled to overtime wages.

If Plaintiff was an exempt employee, then exempt employees are generally not subject to the minimum wage and overtime laws as the 1st cause of action seems to be for. See generally 29 USC § 206(a), § 213(a); Cal. Prac. Guide Employment Litigation § 11:731 (Rutter Group 2015) (“Workers employed in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity are exempt from overtime and minimum wage requirements”); Kettenring v.

In Keller, a case factually similar to the instant case, the court found that individual questions predominated in the managers' action for unpaid overtime. In Arenas, the court of appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to certify a class of restaurant managers allegedly misclassified as exempt under Lab. Code, § 515, subd. (a), from the overtime wage requirement of Lab. Code, § 510, subd. (a).

In Keller, a case factually similar to the instant case, the court found that individual questions predominated in the managers' action for unpaid overtime. In Arenas, the court of appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to certify a class of restaurant managers allegedly misclassified as exempt under Lab. Code, § 515, subd. (a), from the overtime wage requirement of Lab. Code, § 510, subd. (a).

from May 15, 2015, to the present; (d) Overtime Subclass: all Defendants’ non-exempt employees who worked one or more shifts in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a workweek in California during the period from May 15, 2015, to the present; As an alternative to Subclass (d): all Defendants’ non-exempt employees who worked one or more shifts in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a workweek in California and were not properly paid all overtime wages during the period

She further alleges that she “regularly spent more than 50% of her work time performing non-exempt work for many hours beyond eight (8) hours per day and 40 hours per week without being compensated for overtime.” (Id.). The court, on demurrer, is required to accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true. If Plaintiff’s allegations are true, then under California law she does not qualify for exemption from overtime, and her claim for unpaid overtime is valid.

Pizano and other salaried and/or exempt aggrieved employees and failed to compensate them for all hours worked. FM also failed to compensate hourly-paid or non-exempt aggrieved employees work performed off-the-clock, including pre- and post- shift, and during meal breaks. Additionally, FM excluded non-discretionary bonuses and incentives from aggrieved employees' overtime compensation. Therefore, Mr.

Defendant’s exemption defense fails, as a matter of law, as to Plaintiff Hartley because (a) Hartley’s undisputed job duties place him outside of any potential exemption from overtime; and (b) Defendant cannot show that Hartley is exempt from California’s overtime laws; and 2.

Defendant contends that the fourth cause of action for failure to pay overtime wages fails as a matter of law because tour bus operators are exempt from overtime regulations as a matter of law. IWC Wage Order No. 9-2001 (8 CCR §11090) applies to wages, hours and working conditions in the transportation industry. However, "[t]he provisions of this section are not applicable to employees whose hours of service are regulated by: ...

ISSUE 1: Plaintiffs third cause of action for failure to pay overtime fails as a matter of law because, irrespective of whether Plaintiff was or was not an independent contractor, Plaintiff was exempt from California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194 pursuant to the "Executive Exemption" under IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001 and California Labor Code § 515(a).

Issue No. 10: Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Gender Discrimination fails because Plaintiff was lawfully terminated for violating EMC’s Respectful Workplace policy Issue No. 11: Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages fails because Plaintiff admits he was an exempt employee of EMC. Issue No. 12: Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages fails because Plaintiff was an exempt administrative employee of EMC.

Issue No. 10: Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Gender Discrimination fails because Plaintiff was lawfully terminated for violating EMC’s Respectful Workplace policy Issue No. 11: Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages fails because Plaintiff admits he was an exempt employee of EMC. Issue No. 12: Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages fails because Plaintiff was an exempt administrative employee of EMC.

Issue No. 10: Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Gender Discrimination fails because Plaintiff was lawfully terminated for violating EMC’s Respectful Workplace policy Issue No. 11: Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages fails because Plaintiff admits he was an exempt employee of EMC. Issue No. 12: Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages fails because Plaintiff was an exempt administrative employee of EMC.

In that case, the Court of Appeal held that the Regents was exempt for the Labor Code's overtime provisions set forth in Labor Code section 1194. While not the same violation, Plaintiff here contends that Defendant is violating the minimum wage requirements set forth in the statute. However, there is no reasonable or meaningful distinction between overtime and minimum wage requirements which would support a diversion from the holding in Kim.

As a result, the proposed class is defined to include all non-exempt employees of Defendant except “persons with administrative or managerial duties only.” (Revised Settlement ¶ 4.) Does Defendant have any non-exempt employees other than construction workers and office workers? If so, is Plaintiff able to represent those other non-exempt employees adequately? Alternatively, should the proposed class simply be limited to non-exempt construction workers who have no managerial duties? 2.

“Exempt work shall include, for example, all work that is directly and closely related to exempt work and work which is properly viewed as a means for carrying out exempt functions.

(asserted as to all other claims); and (iii) Plaintiffs who served as captains or second-captains are exempt from overtime requirements (asserted as to 3rd cause of action).

Since Sheepherders are separately defined, Plaintiff’s contend that they are exempt from numerous sections of Wage Order No. 14-2001, specifically that they are exempt from hourly wages under Labor Code § 2695.2 and therefore employers of sheepherders are not required to pay sheepherders for “all hours worked” and thus are not required to pay overtime.

It is impossible to determine from defendants’ one-sentence argument whether or not plaintiffs (including putative class plaintiffs) are exempt from California overtime laws. It is not even clear that this is what defendants were arguing (given the lack of analysis in the briefs), since in Reply Mr. Singh argued plaintiff was exempt from Federal overtime laws. Perhaps they were positing that plaintiff was exempt from any overtime laws, but that was by no means clear, much less explained or analyzed.

Plaintiffs filed their putative class action complaint in this case on February 25, 2014, alleging defendant misclassified them as exempt from California’s overtime laws and failed to pay them overtime compensation. The complaint alleges claims for (1) UCL violations, (2) failure to pay overtime compensation (Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194, 1198), (3) failure to provide itemized wage statements (Lab. Code § 226), and (4) failure to provide wages when due (Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203).

For the first month of her employment, Defendants classified Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee, paid her 1.5 times her hourly salary for overtime work, and provided her timely meal and rest breaks. (Compl. ¶ 14.) In December 2019, Defendants reclassified Plaintiff as an exempt employee and paid her on a salary basis. (Compl. ¶ 15.) This reclassification was improper. (Ibid.) Defendants again reclassified Plaintiff as a non-exempt employee in November, 2020.

As to the overtime claim, Plaintiff alleges that “[m]anagement and supervisors described the incentive program to potential and new employees as part of the compensation package,” but that despite the promises of non-discretionary incentive pay, Defendant had a “uniform policy and practice not to pay the members of the [California Class] the correct overtime rate for all overtime worked.” (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10.)

Apparently, plaintiff is contending that the exempt employees were misclassified, and that they actually were non-exempt and thus should have been paid overtime, received meal and rest breaks, etc. Thus, the exempt employees will actually receive the majority of the proposed settlement proceeds. As a result, it is unclear whether the exempt and the non-exempt employees even belong in the same class, or share the same types of violations and damages.

Overtime Subclass: all of Defendant's California-based hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a workweek during the period from September 4, 2010 to the present; 2.

Regarding overtime violations based on an alleged failure to include non-discretionary bonuses in the overtime rate, defense counsel notes that the majority of Defendant’s non-exempt employees were ineligible for such bonuses. Only Plaintiff, and those who shared similar positions, were eligible. (Becker Decl., ¶ 5.)

Defendants argue that joinder is not appropriate because plaintiffs worked in different stores in four counties and the determination of whether an employee is exempt from overtime is an individualized, fact-intensive inquiry.

- The claim for unpaid wages at the designated rate (2nd cause of action) fails because payment of a day rate satisfies California's minimum wage and overtime requirements. - The claim for failure to pay overtime (3rd cause of action) fails because payment of a day rate satisfies California's overtime requirements as to captains and second captains who are exempt from overtime. - The claim for failure to provide meal periods (4th cause of action) is preempted by federal law.

Thus, defendants are exempt from plaintiff’s overtime allegations only during the time periods when the collective bargaining agreements expressly provided wage scales, but not during the earlier time periods when they did not do so.

Defendant failed to properly blend these wages and instead paid non-exempt Aggrieved Employees overtime based only on the base hourly rate of pay, thus depriving our client and other non-exempt Aggrieved Employees of all overtime wages earned. Our client also alleges that Defendant rounded down the hours reflected on her and other nonexempt California employees' clock in/out records to pay fewer hours than were actually worked.

Plaintiff alleges the following ultimate facts: Defendant employed "Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, from approximately July 2015 to approximately March 2016," Defendants hired other class members and classified them as non-exempt, Plaintiff and other class members "worked over eight (8) hours in a day, and/or forty (40) hours in a week during their employment with Defendants," and Defendant failed to pay overtime. (Complaint, ¶¶ 19, 20, 25, 26.)

Does the unlawful rounding claim sound in minimum wage or overtime? It is pled as an overtime violation in the complaint, but the valuation in counsel’s declaration does not explain whether it is based on an overtime rate or a minimum wage rate. 15.

Plaintiffs sole cause of action is a representative claim under PAGA for civil penalties and wages owed for violations of the Labor Code during her employment as a non-exempt Branch Service Officer in March 2010 through July 2020. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to pay overtime, failed to maintain accurate time records, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to pay all wages owed upon separation.

Plaintiff, who was an hourly, non-exempt employee of Defendants from December 2015 to March 2016 (Compl., ¶ 19), seeks to represent a class consisting of all hourly or non-exempt employees of Defendants in the State of California from four years before filing to the present. (Id., ¶ 14.) The predicate Labor Code violations for the sole UCL claim include overtime, minimum wage, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements, waiting time, biweekly pay, failure to reimburse expenses and recordkeeping.

In general, and as relevant here, her claims are that she was treated as an exempt employee, even though she should not have been, and is therefore owed overtime pay and penalties for late payments and incomplete wage statements. She also claims to be owed reimbursements for travel and cell phone use.

Those who are exempt from overtime are also treated differently for PTO deductions, and may have the most to lose from a vacation policy, but are to be paid the same in settlement as non-exempt persons. Because of the differing policies applying at different times to different sets of persons within the classes, the potential for conflicts is a serious concern for the classes as currently constructed. 3. Settlement a.

- The claim for unpaid wages at the designated rate (2nd cause of action) fails because payment of a day rate satisfies California's minimum wage and overtime requirements. - The claim for failure to pay overtime (3rd cause of action) fails because payment of a day rate satisfies California's overtime requirements as to captains and second captains who are exempt from overtime.

Code §315029(b) are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime compensation requirement pursuant to the motor carrier exemption, regardless of whether the Secretary of Transportation actually exercises jurisdiction. Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62, 77.

As the Court understands the case, only the Non-Union Subclass had a viable overtime claim. (See ROA 47, ¶ 6 [stipulation explaining that the operative SAC “limits Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid overtime to the Non-Union Subclass”].) But the settlement defines only an all-employee class. Furthermore, even though only the non-union employees have viable overtime claims, the settlement pays all employees to settle claims including overtime. Shouldn’t overtime payments be limited to the Non-Union Subclass?

The instant case does not require such individualized inquiries into the circumstances and schedules of non-exempt employees. Putative class members can establish Home Depot's liability for overtime if Home Depot did not have a legitimate business purpose in how it designated the workday for its non-exempt workers as a group. 6 Either the trier of fact finder will find that Home Depot set its uniform workday definition to evade paying overtime, or it will not so find. Seymore , 194 Cal. App. 4th at 371 .

Overtime Subclass: all of Defendant's California-based hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a workweek during the period from September 4, 2010 to the present; 2.

They further allege that they were non-exempt employees, that their wage statements omitted hours worked, hourly rate, and total amount of wages, and that they worked 11.5-hour shifts per day from about 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. without receiving overtime pay, meal breaks for every 10 hours worked, or rest breaks for every four hours worked. Complaint ¶¶ 11-17. They also allege that defendant failed to pay plaintiffs’ all wages earned, including overtime wages. Complaint ¶ 38.

Defendant has presented admissible evidence establishing that: (1) plaintiff was an exempt employee and, as such, is not entitled to overtime compensation (Labor Code § 515(a)); (2) plaintiff was compensated for both his gross wages and unused vacation in his final paycheck; (3) plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the Labor Code § 558 claim; (4) there is no violation of Labor Code § 226 because plaintiff, as an exempt employee, is not entitled to receive itemized wage statements

Defendant has presented admissible evidence establishing that: (1) plaintiff was an exempt employee and, as such, is not entitled to overtime compensation (Labor Code § 515(a)); (2) plaintiff was compensated for both his gross wages and unused vacation in his final paycheck; (3) plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the Labor Code § 558 claim; (4) there is no violation of Labor Code § 226 because plaintiff, as an exempt employee, is not entitled to receive itemized wage statements

Plaintiff Diana Miranda worked for Defendant Kittrich Corporation as an hourly non-exempt employee.

Counsel states that it reviewed the time and payroll records of non-exempt employees. (Bell Decl. ¶ 5.) Did counsel review all time records for all non-exempt employees for the entire class period, or only a sample? If a sample, how large a sample, and what steps did the parties take to ensure the sample was properly representative? 8. The Court has several questions about the valuation of the minimum wage and overtime claims, to which counsel assigns a single combined value.

Plaintiff concedes that the "vast majority" of the trial and pre-trial work went to establishing plaintiff's status as a non-exempt employee. Reply, p. 8. While plaintiff succeeded, his success was limited. Plaintiff claimed he was owed over $13,000 for overtime, $4,000 for wage statement violations, $3,570 for minimum wage penalty, and $5,200 for waiting time penalties. ROA # 112 [Pltf.'s Trial Brief], p. 14.

Among plaintiff's contentions is that defendants failed to pay him overtime. Plaintiff asserts that he was misclassified as an exempt employee. Defendants assert that plaintiff was correctly classified and, among other things, he is not entitled to overtime pay. Defendants have served a subpoena to obtain records from plaintiff's employer prior to defendant.

Regents of University of California (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 703 discussed the applicability of wage and hour rules to the Regents as follows: Courts have consistently held the Regents is exempt from statutes regulating the wages and benefits of employees and other workers, including those pertaining to prevailing wages, overtime pay, and indemnification for the cost of work uniforms and maintenance, on the ground those matters are internal affairs of the university that do not come within any of the exceptions

After hearing the evidence and arguments, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the case was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on whether Plaintiff was exempt from overtime pay or was not exempt. The jury found that Bongsang Yeo was an exempt employee under the executive exemption between October 26, 2013 to October 2016. By reason of said verdict, the Court found that Defendant was entitled to judgment against Plaintiff Bongsang Yeo.

The relevant notice states: Claimant seeks relief on behalf of himself, the State of California, and other persons who were employed by Respondents in California as exempt workers for Respondents, who were not paid wages, not paid for wages and overtime which they worked, not paid overtime at the proper rate, not provided with meal and rest breaks, not provided with wage statements, not provided with correct wage statements, as well as other violations outlined herein.

In the instant action, Plaintiff on his own behalf and all aggrieved California-based non-exempt employees seeks civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act for the underlying violations of the Labor Code: (1) failure to pay minimum wage; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to maintain temperature providing reasonable comfort; (6) failure to provide suitable seats; (7) failure to provide complete and accurate wage

Unpaid Overtime Class: All current and former non-exempt employees of SPI who worked at any of its California locations, and who worked at multiple rates of pay in the same workweek that they also worked overtime, during the time period of July 9, 2016 through the present date.

Unpaid Overtime Class: All current and former non-exempt employees of SPI who worked at any of its California locations, and who worked at multiple rates of pay in the same workweek that they also worked overtime, during the time period of July 9, 2016 through the present date.

Unpaid Overtime Class: All current and former non-exempt employees of SPI who worked at any of its California locations, and who worked at multiple rates of pay in the same workweek that they also worked overtime, during the time period of July 9, 2016 through the present date.

Unpaid Overtime Class: All current and former non-exempt employees of SPI who worked at any of its California locations, and who worked at multiple rates of pay in the same workweek that they also worked overtime, during the time period of July 9, 2016 through the present date.

Unpaid Overtime Class: All current and former non-exempt employees of SPI who worked at any of its California locations, and who worked at multiple rates of pay in the same workweek that they also worked overtime, during the time period of July 9, 2016 through the present date.

Unpaid Overtime Class: All current and former non-exempt employees of SPI who worked at any of its California locations, and who worked at multiple rates of pay in the same workweek that they also worked overtime, during the time period of July 9, 2016 through the present date.

There are three different categories of exempt employees: (1) employees totally exempt from the FLSA; (2) employees exempt from both the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime pay requirements; and (3) employees exempt from either minimum wage or overtime pay requirements but not both. (Id.) Exemptions are narrowly construed, and related issues present a mixed question of law and fact. (Abshire v. County of Kern (9th Cir. 1990) 908 F.2d 483, 485-486; Myers v. Hertz Corp. (2nd Cir. 2010) 624 F.3d 537, 548.)

Plaintiffs in Quintana allege that Defendant Big O Tires, LLC (“BOT”) failed to pay wages, overtime, off-the-clock work, and wages upon the ending of employment to persons working in various non-exempt hourly positions, including Service Managers, Store Managers, Sales Managers, Service Managers, Tire Technicians, and Mechanics. [Quintana FAC, ¶1.]

The AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES Were Misclassified as Exempt from Overtime Provisions The AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were misclassified as exempt pursuant to the executive (managerial) exemption as the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES did not spend more than fifty (50%) of the work time on exempt duties in violation of Labor Code § 515. (Id. at pp. 2-3.) In terms of California authority, Defendants rely on Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Company (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 824 to support their argument that Plaintiff’s notice was insufficient.

Respondents argue the law does not mandate the Department to provide additional funding for salary increases to the Program Directors because there is no mandate that Program Directors be classified as exempt. While the law allows employers to exempt executive capacity employees from overtime payments, there is no law requiring such a classification.

Plaintiff does not allege particular evidentiary facts to establish (1) what constitutes an exempt employee and how Plaintiff’s duties, specifically, do not meet the test for exempt status (2) how/why Plaintiff was not sufficiently paid to be considered exempt (3) the number of hours that Plaintiff specifically had to work each week that was above 40 hours and/or the number of hours that Plaintiff had to specifically had to work above 8 hours each day (4) the basis for claiming how Plaintiff was not compensated

(New World) as a non-exempt employee from August 2013 until July 2015, but that Defendant misclassified him as an exempt employee and denied him compensation as required by the Labor Code. Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: 1) failure to pay overtime compensation; 2) failure to provide meal and rest periods; and 3) failure to maintain records and provide itemized wage statements.

Code § 515(a) [overtime]; IWC Wage Order 5 §§ 1(B), 11, 12 [meal and rest periods not required for persons employed in executive capacities].) According to defendants, because plaintiff was not entitled to overtime or meal or rest periods, plaintiff was paid all the wages to which he was entitled. As an initial matter, the Court notes that IWC Order 14 pertains to agricultural occupations, which plaintiff did not have.

Also, Defendant argues that the subclass definition of "[a]ll current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from February 27, 2014 to final judgment who earned commissions/non-discretionary bonuses/non-discretionary performance pay which was not used to calculate the regular rate of pay used to calculate the overtime rate for the payment of overtime wages," is defective because it contains no objective

Also, Defendant argues that the subclass definition of "[a]ll current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from February 27, 2014 to final judgment who earned commissions/non-discretionary bonuses/non-discretionary performance pay which was not used to calculate the regular rate of pay used to calculate the overtime rate for the payment of overtime wages," is defective because it contains no objective

An exempt employee has no claim for missed meals, rest breaks, or overtime. By improperly deeming the remaining class members to be exempt from overtime, NATC dispensed with any duty to report overtime, missed meals, and rest breaks from consideration. The Court also notes that it certainly appears that defendant is improperly attempting to prevent the rendering of a final judgment against it by derailing the reference through refusal to pay the costs thereof as ordered by the Court.

Hipshman gives her professional opinion that defendants misclassified their staffing consultants as exempt employees when they should have been classified as non-exempt from overtime under California law. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-12.) Thus, it appears that plaintiff has now shown that the members of the class who were misclassified as exempt when they should have been classified as non- exempt were all subjected to similar violations, including denial of overtime, meal and rest breaks.

He received no training on rules and regulations relating to employee pay, such as whether overtime was required. (Id. at 103:9-104:6.) Orozco admitted that during the class period, hourly employees were not paid overtime. (Id. at 95:3-96:16, 113;10-114:6.) Although Orozco was a general manager, he did not know the difference between exempt and non-exempt employees. (Id. at 114:16-23.) Similarly, Orozco received no training on rules and regulations relating to meal and rest breaks. (Id. at 120:18-25.)

Quality sought summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff was exempt from overtime, meal period, and rest break requirements because she was a “personal attendant” under the applicable wage order and because defendant is exempt from the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights as a vendor under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. The Court found in defendant’s favor on both issues and granted summary judgment for Quality on plaintiff’s individual claims.

DISCUSSION Defendant moves to bifurcate discovery, law and motion, and trial as to three issues: [1] whether Plaintiff was exempt from overtime because he was a driver under the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and/or exempt from overtime under the CCR because he drove a truck that transported hazardous materials; [2] whether his meal and rest break claims are preempted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and/or the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; and [3]

P. 6 lines 5-6: "RISTORANTE similarly misclassified other employees as managers when the vast majority of their job duties were non-exempt." 5. P. 6 lines 10-11: "RISTORANTE similarly failed to pay other misclassified employees overtime at the overtime rate to which they were entitled." 6. P. 6 lines 13-14: "both for herself and other employees similarly situated." 7.

Counsel’s explanation of the nature of the overtime claim and the valuation analysis is confusing and still conclusory. In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege the nature of the overtime claim as follows: Defendant had a uniform policy of compensating non-exempt hourly employees in the positions of automotive technicians, automotive painters, automotive repairs men, and other like positions with a non-discretionary bonus (referred to as a “production bonus”).

As mentioned above, the evidence is insufficient to support a release of the overtime claims for zero consideration. Plaintiff’s states that he reviewed time records for H-Y Box Inc., for 2012 to 2016, and concluded that “about” 10% of the employees worked more than 8 hours per day and more than 40 hours per week, and that 5% of those employees were exempt, and that “it appears” H-Y Box Inc., paid properly [sic] overtime compensation to its non-exempt employees.

Plaintiff has raised a material issue of fact regarding whether he was properly classified as exempt. As there is an issue of fact as to whether he was properly classified as exempt, there are issues of fact as to whether Defendant failed to pay overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and whether waiting time penalties apply.

Plaintiff was not paid overtime for hours worked beyond 8 hours per day; - Plaintiff was not paid overtime for hours worked beyond 40 hours per week; - Plaintiff was not paid 2 hours of overtime each day he worked; - Plaintiff did not receive uninterrupted rest periods; - Plaintiff did not receive his uninterrupted meal periods; - Plaintiff drove between 400 - 500 miles per day; - Plaintiff drove his own car to make deliveries; -

As discussed above re: Issue No. 3, if Plaintiff is actually found to be non-exempt (see discussion above re: Issue No. 1), his complaints to his superior, Houshiar, in the September 17, 2016 email would have been about working overtime hours without overtime pay, which is a crime. Under Labor Code section 1199[6] it is a crime for an employer to fail to pay overtime wages as fixed by the Industrial Welfare Commission.” (Gould v.

Defendant explains that Plaintiff seeks overtime wages and related penalties based on Defendant's alleged misclassification of Plaintiff as "exempt," while in the San Diego Action, Plaintiff asserts claims under the Private Attorney General Act, which arise from the same misclassification.

Smith’s (“Plaintiff”) main contention is that she and the other putative class 26 members, who worked as union organizers, were primarily engaged in the type of work that is 27 considered non-exempt and therefore were and are entitled to overtime compensation. 28 (Complaint, ¶ 16.)

The activities constituting exempt work and non-exempt work shall be construed in the same manner as such items are construed in the following regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act effective as of the date of this order: 29 C.F.R. Sections 541.102, 541.104-111, and 541.115-116. Exempt work shall include, for example, all work that is directly and closely related to exempt work and work which is properly viewed as a means for carrying out exempt functions.

The Fifth Amended Complaint for (1) Age Discrimination, (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation, (3) Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods, (4) Failure to Maintain Records, and (5) Violations of B&P Code 17200 is based upon allegations that Defendant terminated Plaintiff based upon her age and misclassified Plaintiff as an exempt employee.

Plaintiffs were improperly classified as exempt employees and, as a result, they were not paid overtime. Id. at ¶ 21. Plaintiffs further allege they were not provided meal periods or rest breaks. Id. at ¶ 25.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not alleged he actually worked any overtime or how much overtime. Plaintiff has not alleged his job duties to support his allegation that he should have been classified as “non-exempt.”

The SAC identifies the "Plaintiff Class" as "All non-exempt employees who have been employed or are currently employed by Defendants during the Class Period in California who hold the title of 'Solutions Consultant' (exclusive of anyone who held the positions of 'Manager,' 'Store Lead,' 'Assistant Store Manager,' or any other management position at any time). As used in this class definition, the term 'non-exempt employee' refers to those who Defendants have classified as non-exempt employees." (SAC ¶ 32.)

Defendant has also improperly limited its response to class members deemed exempt by defendant and/or its franchisees. Named plaintiff worked both as a non-exempt and as an exempt employee. (See Exhibit 4 to the Lander Declaration filed February 14, 2017, showing payment of overtime and payment on a strict salary basis.) The complaint defines the class as those who worked as Staffing Consultants, without regard to exempt or non-exempt status.

Plaintiff alleges in his operative First Amended Complaint (filed December 20, 2016) that he was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt Maintenance Mechanic from March 30, 2015 until April 28, 2016. (FAC ¶ 9.) In support of his First Cause of Action for unpaid overtime, Plaintiff alleges the following facts: 1.

Plaintiff alleges that she was misclassified as an exempt employee. (Compl., ¶¶ 6-7, 9-13.) As such, defendant failed to pay plaintiff overtime, allow her to take meal and rest breaks, or provide itemized wage statements. (Id., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated within an hour of her complaints to management that she was not being paid overtime wages. (Id., ¶ 14.) ANALYSIS: Defendant seeks to strike plaintiff’s claim for and references to punitive damages and liquidated damages.

Motion in Limine #1 Erlandson claims, by way of his cross-complaint, that he was improperly classified as an exempt employee and should have been paid for overtime. Eversoft designated Rosen as a damages expert to testify concerning calculation of any overtime wages; during Rosens deposition, he produced a Schedule 1R, Wages Calculated v.

The AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES Were Misclassified as Exempt from Overtime Provisions The AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were misclassified as exempt pursuant to the executive (managerial) exemption as the AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES did not spend more than fifty (50%) of the work time on exempt duties in violation of Labor Code § 515. (Id. at pp. 2-3.) In terms of California authority, Defendants rely on Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Company (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 824 to support their argument that Plaintiff’s notice was insufficient.

Section 510 regulates overtime pay. ( Cal. Lab. Code § 510). Even if this exemption does apply, because Plaintiff does not allege any claims for overtime pay, this exemption has no bearing on Plaintiff’s pleadings. The demurrer is, therefore, overruled. Unless waived, notice of ruling by Plaintiff.