By Calvin House | Published July 14, 2014 | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on California’s Commissioned Employee Exemption
Search Site
Recent Blog Posts
California’s Commissioned Employee Exemption
In response to an inquiry from the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court has explained how earnings should be allocated when determining whether a commissioned employee’s wages exceed one and a half times the minimum wage. That is one of the elements of California’s commissioned employee exemption from overtime requirements. See Wage Order No. 4, section 3(D). Read More
Read More
Unauthorized Aliens May Sue For Discrimination
The California Supreme Court has ruled that unauthorized aliens may sue for discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The ruling came in a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by an employee who had used another’s social security number and card to verify his employment eligibility. Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., Case No. S196568 (Cal. Supreme Read More
Read More
Does stress from rush hour traffic require an accommodation?
That is the question posed by a disability discrimination complaint filed recently in New Jersey. Andrea DeGerolamo alleges that she suffered from “great anxiety and depression which was especially aggravated by crowded roadways experienced during the heavy traffic of rush hour.” According to her complaint, her employer initially accommodated her by allowing her to come in after Read More
Read More
Working Out May Be Work
Whether an employee is acting within the course of employment determines whether the employer is responsible for the employee’s acts and omissions. Under Labor Code section 3600 the course of employment for workers compensation purposes does not extend to “voluntary participation in any off-duty recreational, social, or athletic activity not constituting part of the employee’s work-related duties, Read More
Read More
Workplace Surveillance and Investigations
Two articles in The New York Times today prompt consideration of the appropriate place for surveillance in the workplace. See “Unblinking Eyes Track Employees” and “American Apparel Ousts Its Founder, Dov Charney, Over Nude Photos“. Employers must strike the proper balance between an employee’s privacy interest and the employer’s interest in monitoring activity in the workplace. As Read More
Read More
Are truckers independent contractors?
Trucking companies have become the targets of lawsuits alleging that they misclassified their drivers as independent contractors. Such cases include Robles v. Comtrak Logistics, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-00161 (putative class action currently pending in the federal court in Sacramento) and Seacon Logix Inc. v. Labor Commissioner (Seacon ordered to pay $105,000 for violations against four of its drivers). Read More
Read More
U.S. Supreme Court adopts “but for” test for Title VII retaliation claims
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, Case No. 12-484 (Jun. 24, 2013), the U. S. Supreme Court has directed courts to apply the “but for” test to retaliation claims brought under Title VII. This differs from the standard for assessing status-based discrimination claims that Congress enacted into 42 U.S.C. section §2000e–2(m). That section Read More
Read More
“Suitable Seats” Class Action by Cashiers
The California wage orders (available here) provide: “(A) All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats. (B)When employees are not engaged in the active duties of their employment and the nature of the work requires standing, an adequate number of suitable seats shall Read More
Read More
Arbitration Agreement May Not Preclude PAGA Representative Actions
The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code sections 2698 – 2699.5) (PAGA) allows a aggrieved employee to recover civil penalties for violations of the California Labor Code on behalf of himself or herself and other employees. 75 percent of the amount recovered goes to the State and the balance to the Read More
Read More
Can an employee do exempt and nonexempt work at the same time?
“Not in California” was the answer that Safeway recently received from the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles. Heyen v. Safeway Inc., Case No. B237418 (May 23, 2013). Linda Heyen was responsible for all store operations at Safeway’s Oceanside store, but, she also had to do bookkeeping and other nonexempt work. She was able Read More
Read More