Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Exempt Status: An employee is considered administratively exempt from overtime wages under California Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 1-2001 if he:
(In re United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1051; CACI 2721.)
In determining whether an employee performs administrative duties more than half the time, two important factors include:
(Id.)
The burden of proof as to the validity of the exemption is on the party claiming the exemption. (CCP § 720.360.)
Wage Order 14, which governs overtime exemptions for agricultural occupations, which states than exempt employee is one who is engaged in work which is primarily intellectual, managerial, or creative, and which requires exercise of discretion and independent judgment. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11140(2)(D).) It states that “primarily” means more than one-half of the employee’s work time. (Id. at subd. 2(K).) Exemptions from overtime provisions are narrowly construed, and an assertion of an exemption from the overtime laws is considered to be an affirmative defense, which the employer bears the burden of proving. (Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 785, 794.)
“[T]he assertion of an exemption from the overtime laws is considered to be an affirmative defense, and therefore the employer bears the burden of proving the employee's exemption.” (Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 789 at 794–795; accord, Nordquist v. McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Co. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 555, stating that an “employer bears the burden of proving an employee is exempt.”; Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 338.)
Courts in overtime exemption cases must proceed through analysis of the employer's realistic expectations and classification of tasks rather than asking the employee to identify in retrospect whether, at a particular time, he or she was engaged in an exempt or nonexempt task. (Martinez v. Joe's Crab Shack Holdings (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 362, 382.)
In order for the CBA exemptions to apply, there must be a valid collective bargaining agreement that expressly provides for:
In Kilbourne v. Coca-Cola Company (S.D. Cal. 2014) 2014 WL 11397891, at *6, the plaintiff argued that because he routinely worked through his 30-minute lunch period, he was not paid the overtime compensation to which he was entitled, and therefore the CBA did not provide premium wage rates for all hours worked. However, the court held that pursuant to Labor Code §514, the CBA is what determines when an employee works overtime hours and is entitled to compensation, and because the CBA at issue provide for the payment of premium wages, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. (Id. at *7-9.) There the court relied on Vranish v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 103, 111, which provided the following rationale supporting the CBA overtime exemption:
Employees, such as plaintiffs, represented by a labor union, “have sought and received alternative wage protections through the collective bargaining process.” (Firestone v. Southern California Gas Co. (9th Cir.2000) 219 F.3d 1063, 1067.) When there is a valid collective bargaining agreement, “[e]mployees and employers are free to bargain over not only the rate of overtime pay, but also when overtime pay will begin. Moreover, employees and employers are free to bargain over not only the timing of when overtime pay begins within a particular day, but also the timing within a given week. The Legislature did not pick and choose which pieces of subparagraph (a) will apply or not apply. Instead, the Legislature made a categorical statement that ‘the requirements of this section,’ meaning this section as a whole, do not apply to employees with valid collective bargaining agreements.” (Wylie v. Foss Maritime Co. (N.D.Cal., Sept. 4, 2008, No. C–06–7228–MHP) 2008 WL 4104304, *17, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 76607, *49.)
Pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 96.8, the California State Labor Commissioner is empowered to enforce judgments on behalf of employees against their employers, by levying the employers’ property as otherwise described in CCP § 700.140 et seq. A judgment debtor subject to such a levy may thereafter seek an exemption, as provided for in CCP § 703.020 et seq.
Flex Overtime Class: "All hourly non-exempt employees employed by Defendant at any time between May 8, 2010, and January 31, 2015 who Defendant programmed in the payroll system as flex employees and were not compensated at an overtime rate of pay for all hours worked over 8 hours up to 12 hours in a day." 2.
YESENIA FUERTE VS. GRAYBILL MEDICAL GROUP INC
37-2014-00014771-CU-OE-CTL
Jan 30, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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
JOSE LUIS MORALES VS. 22ND DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION
37-2013-00040938-CU-OE-CTL
Mar 24, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
CHRISTOPHER SOLIS VS MICHAEL STORES PROCUREMENT COMPANY, INC
23STCV01014
Jan 29, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS WAGE AND HOUR CASES JCCP5083 [E-FILE]
JCCP5083
Jul 15, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
PARK VS. AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC.
30-2019-01063183
Oct 04, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.
KATHERINE SCHWINGHAMMER VS COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
18CV01001
Apr 05, 2019
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
ROBERSON VS. CONTROL AIR CONDITIONING CORPORATION
30-2019-01069028
Feb 27, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
JAMES HERB VS FINNEY'S FUNK ZONE LP
21CV02120
Nov 15, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
BRIAN PETERS V. RFI ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.
18CV324215
Jun 10, 2021
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
RAVINDER SINGH ET AL. VS MANJEET SINGH ET AL.
STK-CV-UBC-2019-0006242
Apr 07, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
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.
ARAMBULA VS. IRVNE UNIFIRED SCHOOL DISTRICT
30-2016-00869803-CU-JR-CJC
Oct 21, 2016
Orange County, CA
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
ANONIO RAMIREZ VS TARGET PRECISION, INC.,
19STCV16949
Mar 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
PIZANO VS FM INDUSTRIES, INC.
RG19035814
Feb 22, 2021
Alameda County, CA
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.
TERI GOLDSTEIN VS PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION
BC633908
Mar 22, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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).
BRENT GERARD VS. LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA INC
2007-30000003
Jun 24, 2010
Sacramento County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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).
BRENT GERARD VS. LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA INC
34-2007-30000003-CU-OE-GDS
Jun 24, 2010
Sacramento County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
MARK HARTLEY ET AL VS INTERSTATE TIRE DISTRIBUTOR LLC
BC652458
Feb 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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: ...
CASTELLANO VS MUH CORPORATION
37-2018-00014404-CU-OE-CTL
Mar 05, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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).
LAPCHIH FAN VS DOUGLAS ELLIMAN OF CALIFORNIA INC ET AL
BC697957
Mar 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
CYR VS EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER
PSC2004149
Oct 09, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
CYR VS EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER
PSC2004149
Oct 08, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
CYR VS EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER
PSC2004149
Oct 10, 2022
Riverside County, CA
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.
CAMPBELL VS. DCC COMPANIES INC.
30-2017-00962963-CU-OE-CXC
Jul 26, 2019
Orange County, CA
“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.
GATLIN V. S.K.B. CORPORATION
30-2016-00891715-CU-WT-CJC
Dec 14, 2018
Orange County, CA
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.
GOMEZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA [EFILE]
37-2019-00030873-CU-OE-CTL
Nov 21, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
(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).
2016-00484144
Aug 25, 2021
Ventura County, CA
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.
21CV-04018
Apr 20, 2022
Merced County, CA
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.
GUTIERREZ V. SINGH
16CECG03537
May 03, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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).
KIZER VS. TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT
30-2017-00707394-CU-JR-CXC
May 09, 2018
Orange County, CA
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.)
ARANGO VS. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
30-2019-01056839
Aug 30, 2019
Orange County, CA
- 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.
NORRIS VS GULF OFFSHORE LOGISTICS
56-2016-00484144-CU-OE-VTA
Aug 24, 2021
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
SAMANTHA WILKINS VS JOY MILL ENTERTAINMENT INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV43707
Oct 05, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
WANG VS. FOUNTAIN VALLEY REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER
30-2015-00821329-CU-OE-CXC
Aug 23, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.
JANEICE THOMAS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED AND ON BEHALF OF AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES VS. CHECKSMART FINANCIAL LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
34-2014-00168533-CU-OE-GDS
Jun 25, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.)
BORG VS METROPOLITAN HOME MORTGAGE, INC.
30-2016-00869416-CU-OE-CXC
Nov 22, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.
MENLO VS. BIG LOTS STORES INC
37-2019-00024738-CU-OE-CTL
Oct 03, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
JENICE DORSEY, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL "AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES" PURSUANT VS GUARDIAN STORAGE CENTERS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20CMCV00018
Jan 12, 2021
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
CAPRIOLA V. EXPRESS SERVICES, INC.
15CECG02741
Aug 20, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.)
PODERICK VS AMERICAN INTERNET MORTGAGE INC [E-FILE]
37-2017-00041464-CU-OE-CTL
Mar 08, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
DELEON VS. NCH MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.
30-2019-01060073
Oct 04, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.
MENDOZA V. CAMPOS APARTMENTS
15CECG00904
Feb 21, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
RANGEL VS. BASSETT DIRECT NC, LLC
30-2018-01040101
Jan 08, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
JOZETTE D. TAYLOR, ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL VS MUFG UNION BANK, N.A.
21STCV27530
Dec 09, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
- 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.
2016-00484144
Aug 24, 2021
Ventura County, CA
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.
TAN CHUM VS. RICHARD HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC./CLASS ACTION
16CECG03920
Aug 23, 2019
Fresno County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
JUN HE VS NEWSTARS TOUR INC ET AL
BC613817
May 04, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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 .
ROGER FLORES VS ELEMENT MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY HUNTINGTON BEACH LLC
18STCV10074
Dec 16, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
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?
MONTES VS. KINDNESS GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC
30-2018-01024338
Dec 04, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
DIMINGO LOPEZ-LOPEZ ET AL VS BBS NATIONAL INC ET AL
BC651453
Aug 22, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JANEICE THOMAS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED AND ON BEHALF OF AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES VS. CHECKSMART FINANCIAL LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
34-2014-00168533-CU-OE-GDS
Nov 19, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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
BASS VS PACIFIC PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC.
37-2016-00008735-CU-WT-NC
Sep 22, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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
BASS VS PACIFIC PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC.
37-2016-00008735-CU-WT-NC
Sep 21, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff Diana Miranda worked for Defendant Kittrich Corporation as an hourly non-exempt employee.
DIANA MIRANDA VS KITTRICH CORPORATION
20STCV25005
Jan 31, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
BROCK VS. GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION
30-2017-00952709
Jul 24, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
LEVIKOW VS. HERRING NETWORKS INC
37-2015-00038324-CU-OE-CTL
Oct 25, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
FORMAN VS PERILLO INDUSTRIES INC
56-2016-00488901-CU-WT-VTA
Feb 15, 2017
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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
ABAYON VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
37-2015-00033972-CU-OE-CTL
Feb 02, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
BONGSANG YEO VS PARK DAE GAM NE INC ET AL
BC638377
Aug 08, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
STERN VS HUMAN LONGEVITY INC
37-2018-00013160-CU-OE-CTL
Apr 18, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.)
GARRISON V. SUMMIT ESTATE, INC.
16CV297817
Jun 06, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
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
KENNETH TAYLOR, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL AGGRIEVED CALIFORNIA-BASED NON-EXEMPT EMPLOYEES VS MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC., ET AL.
20STCV19614
Mar 10, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
ADRIANA GARCIA VS LANDMARK RESTAURANT GROUP INC ET AL
BC721246
Sep 24, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES
5235
Aug 14, 2023
Shasta County, CA
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.
SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES
5235
Aug 13, 2023
Shasta County, CA
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.
SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES
5235
Aug 16, 2023
Shasta County, CA
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.
SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES
5235
Aug 18, 2023
Shasta County, CA
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.
SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES
5235
Aug 17, 2023
Shasta County, CA
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.
SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES
5235
Aug 15, 2023
Shasta County, CA
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.]
TBC RETAIL GROUP WAGE AND HOUR CASES
JCCP4701
Dec 14, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION VS. NANCY BARGMANN, AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
34-2017-80002571-CU-WM-GDS
May 18, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
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
JEA HUNG LYOO VS SKY EXPRESS WORLD COURIER, INC., ET AL.
21STCV12715
Aug 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
(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.
DARWIN WILLIS VS NEW WORLD DRAYAGE INC
BC597113
Oct 21, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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
DAVID DEBAR VS. OPTIMA TAX RELIEF, LLC
30-2018-00972771-CU-OE-CXC
Jul 13, 2018
Orange County, CA
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
DEBAR VS. OPTIMA TAX RELIEF, LLC
30-2018-00972771
Jul 13, 2018
Orange County, CA
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.
CAROLYN CORTINA VS. NORTH AMERICAN SERVICES, LLC
07CECG01169
Aug 29, 2017
Jeff Hamilton
Fresno County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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.)
SEGUI VS. ORIGINAL MIKE'S ENTERPRISES LLC
30-2016-00893360-CU-BT-CXC
Oct 25, 2019
Orange County, CA
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]
TERRIELL SWAIN, VS ECOLOGY CONTROL INDUSTRIES, INC.
22STCV30393
May 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
CATHRINE MARTINEZ V. QUALITY RESPITE AND HOME CARE, INC., ET AL.
17-CV-308087
Mar 29, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
GUEVARA VS. H-Y BOX INC.
30-2016-00870843-CU-OE-CXC
Dec 07, 2018
Orange County, CA
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”).
FLORES VS. TUTTLE-CLICK FORD, INC.
30-2016-00854534-CU-OE-CXC
Nov 02, 2018
Orange County, CA
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.
VILPULKUMAR PATEL VS GOVIND VAGHASHIA, ET AL.
EC064357
Sep 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
OLAVARRIA VS. NICK'S RISTORANTE & PIZZERIA, LLC
30-2015-00788837-CU-WT-CJC
Sep 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
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; -
JUNNY KIM VS YOUNG HEE LEE
22STCV06872
Feb 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
CAPRIOLA V. EXPRESS SERVICES, INC.
15CECG02741
Jan 18, 2019
Fresno County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
CUSTODIO CERVANTES VS SUPER SECURE PACKAGING SUPPLIES
BC680517
Jul 23, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
K CAYWOOD VS. MICHAELS STORES INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION
34-2014-00163384-CU-OE-GDS
Jul 20, 2015
Sacramento County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
AROOSH SHAHBAZIAN VS MULGREW AIRCRAFT COMPONENTS INC
BC661219
Feb 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
PERRY VS. THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC
37-2016-00005513-CU-OE-CTL
Mar 01, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.)
SMITH V. THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION (SEIU), LOCAL 521
2016-1-CV-291796
Nov 30, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
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.”
STECKLY VS LAND HOME FINANCIAL
MSC20-01704
May 13, 2021
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
ARCE VS NEWTON DELIVERIES SERVICE INC
37-2016-00033829-CU-OE-CTL
Sep 20, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
ALVIDREZ VS PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE PACIFIC
PSC1901283
Apr 08, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.)
MARIO DE LA ROSA VS. WIRELESS STORE INC
34-2013-00154641-CU-OE-GDS
Apr 19, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
MONTOYA VS. ALUMINUM PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC.
30-2016-00880567-CU-OE-CXC
Oct 05, 2018
Orange County, CA
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.
MIN KYOUNG PARK VS VERY J INC
BC635282
Jan 26, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
EVERSOFT INC ET AL VS GARY ERDLANDSON ET AL
NC061639
Aug 02, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were aware that the wage statements did not contain this information; knew the duties Plaintiff performed on a daily and/or weekly basis did not qualify him to be an overtime-exempt employee; knew they had a legal duty to keep track of the regular and overtime hours Plaintiff worked on a daily and/or weekly basis as a nonexempt, salaried employee and failed to do so; and knew the wage statements they furnished without the required information did not comply with legal requirements
JOSE GARCIA VS KHALID SAMI, ET AL.
20STCV05932
May 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
ADRIANA GARCIA VS LANDMARK RESTAURANT GROUP INC ET AL
BC721246
Nov 01, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Before the discovery of this Handbook, plaintiff was only aware of the Employee Handbook which had been adopted by the District’s Board on September 13, 2016.2 In that version, the section governing overtime was amended to state, “Overtime pay will be paid to non-exempt employees based on actual hours worked, according to law,” and the above-quoted paragraphs from the 2001 Handbook, regarding overtime paid at “one and one-half times” and “double the regular rate of pay,” were deleted. (Plaintiff’s Ex.
IMANI PERCOATS VS. PANOCHE WATER DISTRICT
18CECG01651
Jan 29, 2020
Fresno County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
21CV-04018
Apr 15, 2022
Merced County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.