©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2023 Cal-Peculiarities | 317 567 Emeryville Municipal Code § 5-39.10(d). 568 Emeryville Municipal Code § 5-39.10. 569 Emeryville Municipal Code § 5-39.10(b). 570 Los Angeles Municipal Code Ch. XVIII Art. 5 § 185-87; Art. 8 § 188. 571 Id. § 187.07©. 572 Id. § 185.01(d). 573 Id. 574 Id. 575 Id. § 185.01(c). 576 Id. § 185.02. 577 Id. 578 Id. 579 Id.at § 185.03. 580 Id. 581 Id. § 185.04. 582 Id. 583 Id. 584 https://wagesla.lacity.org/sites/g/files/wph1941/files/2023-03/FWW%20Poster%202023.pdf (English version, last visited Apr. 11, 2023). Posters must be in English, Spanish, Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin), Hindi, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean, Japanese, Thai, Armenian, Russian, Farsi, and any other language spoken by at least five percent of employees at the worksite. 585 Id. § 185.05. 586 Id. 587 Id. 588 Id. § 185.06. 589 Id. 590 Id. 591 Id. 592 Id. § 188.05. 593 Id. 594 Id. § 188.07. 595 Id. § 188.08. 596 Id. § 188.07. 597 Id. § 188.09. 598 Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 4th 1191, 1206 (2011). The nonexempt employees at issue in Sullivan were Colorado and Arizona residents who, as Instructors, trained customers in California to use Oracle software. Oracle arose in an usual procedural posture. The Ninth Circuit, hearing an appeal from a federal district court, certified three questions of California law for the California Supreme Court to decide: First, does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-ofstate plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week? Second, does Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 apply to the overtime work described in question one? Third, does § 17200 apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA?” Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 557 F.3d 979, 983 (9th Cir. 2009). 599 Oracle, 51 Cal. 4th at 1206. 600 Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 732, 752 (2020). 601 Id. 602 Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 762, 776 (2020). 603 Ward, 9 Cal. 5th at 758, 760. 604 Some courts have limited Ward’s breadth. In McPherson v. EF Intercultural Found., Inc., 47 Cal. App. 5th 243 (2020), the Court of Appeal held that California’s vacation pay laws did not extend to some out-of-state employees. McPherson noted that Ward considered overtime laws, not generally all of California’s wage and hour laws. Id. at 260. McPherson then held “[w]e cannot conclude California intended section 227.3—a law that governs the payment of unused vested vacation time when an employee’s employment ends—to apply under the circumstances here: where a nonresident, exempt employee of a non-California employer has periodically performed work within California, has received no California wages, and has paid no California income taxes on any wages earned.” Id. at 272.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4