©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2023 Cal-Peculiarities | 303 186 E.g., Munizza v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 103 F.3d 139 (9th Cir. 1996) (memorandum); Blinston v. Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co., 20 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 6 (W.D. Mo. 1970). 187 Miller v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 481 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2007). 188 481 F.3d at 1124, 1132. 189 154 Cal. App. 4th 164 (2007), rev. granted, No. S156555 (Cal. Sept. 21, 2007). 190 Id. at 177. 191 But see Combs v. Skyriver Commc’ns, Inc., 159 Cal. App. 4th 1242 (2008) (upholding trial court finding that manager of capacity planning and director of network operations was exempt as administrative employee, focusing on “salary” and “duties” tests set forth in IWC Wage Order 4-2001 rather than administrative/production worker dichotomy set forth in Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 87 Cal. App. 4th 805 (2001), where plaintiff primarily engaged in work “directly related to management policies or general business operations” that involved customary and regular exercise of discretion and independent judgment). 192 53 Cal. 4th 170 (2011). 193 Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.), 53 Cal. 4th 170 ( 2011). 194 29 C.F.R. § 541.700(a). 195 29 C.F.R. § 541.106(a)-(c). 196 Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal. 4th 785 (1999). 197 20 Cal. 4th at 852. 198 Batze v. Safeway, Inc., 10 Cal. App. 5th 440, 444-45 ( 2017) (affirming trial court’s ruling for employer that first and second assistant managers spent more than one-half of their workweek in managerial tasks and that they met all the other qualifications to be exempt from overtime rules). 199 Mitchell v. Yoplait, 122 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 8 2004) (upholding, as authorized by Lab. Code § 511(b), alternative workweek schedule by which employees in relevant work unit voted for three twelve-hour shifts and one six-hour shift a week, by which only the last two hours in each twelve-hour shift were considered overtime entitled to time-and-one-half wages, with no overtime premium pay being due for the ninth and tenth hours of work on the twelve-hour shifts). 200 Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc., 22 Cal. App. 5th 1308, 1327-28 (2018). 201 29 C.F.R. § 541.600(d). 202 Lab. Code § 515.5. 203 See IWC Wage Orders § 1(A)(3)(g). 204 29 C.F.R. § 541.5. 205 29 C.F.R. § 541.505(b). 206 Lab. Code § 1171. 207 IWC Wage Order 4, §§ 1(C), 2(M). 208 Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal. 4th 785, 798 (1999). 209 See Espinoza v. Warehouse Demo Servs.,, Inc., 86 Cal. App. 5th 1184, 302 Cal. Rptr. 3d 820 (2022). 210 Id. 211 IWC Wage Orders 4 and 7, § 3(D) (overtime pay requirements do not apply to employees whose earnings exceed one and one-half times the minimum wage if more than one-half of those earnings are commissions). 212 See Koehl v. Verio, Inc., 142 Cal. App. 4th 1313, 1329-37 (2006) (employer may legally advance commissions to employees before they meet all conditions for payment). The DLSE agrees: “The stipulated sum may not be considered to be a draw against commissions if the circumstances show that it was simply paid as a salary; but if the draw actually functions as an integral part of a true commission basis of payment, then the actual commissions paid, even though less than the draw, will qualify as compensation which represents commissions on the sale of good or services.” DLSE Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual, § 50.6.4.2 (June 2002). The DLSE Manual also states: “Consistent commission earnings below, at, or near the draw are indicative of a commission plan that is not bona fide.” Id. § 50.6.1(4). 213 Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 59 Cal. 4th 66 (2014). 214 CBA-related exemptions also apply to sick-leave requirements, see § 2.14, and to meal-break requirements, see § 7.9. There are other CBA-related exemptions as well: Lab. Code § 226.75(f)(2) (rest breaks for employees in safety-sensitive positions at petroleum facilities), 1198.5(q)(4) (inspection of personnel records), 2810.5(c)(3) (written notice of employment information), and 2699.6(a) (PAGA claims for construction employees). 215 Lab. Code § 514. 216 Vranish v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 223 Cal. App. 4th 103, 107 (2014) (upholding summary judgment for the employer) (California Legislature allowed unionized employers to contract for not only the rate of overtime pay, but also when overtime pay will begin). See also Curtis v. Irwin Indus. Inc., 913 F.3d 1146, 1154 (9th Cir. 2019) (following Vranish as correctly interpreting California law as to whether the section 514 CBA overtime exemption applies, absent convincing evidence that the California Supreme Court would reject that interpretation). 217 E.g., Sarmiento v. Sealy, Inc., 2019 WL 3059932, at *6-9 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2019); Huffman v. Pac. Gateway Concessions LLC, 2019 WL 2563133, at *4-6 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2019).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4