Employment Law Observer

On Friday, March 12, 2021, the California Court of Appeal issued a ruling in Wilson v. The La Jolla Group that addresses the appropriate scope of class treatment for employee misclassification under Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court. Dynamex—and its later enactment into statute in the form of AB 5—established the ABC test for determining independent contractor status.

In the spirit of the season—and keeping some semblance of normal—we are using our annual "12 days of the holidays" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on California employers. On this eighth day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: eight maids a-milking and AB 2257.

The US Supreme Court recently issued a five-four decision addressing whether service advisers of a car dealership fell within the automobile sales exemption. While the opinion may not seem particularly helpful for businesses that do not sell cars, a deeper reading reveals that it is a positive case for employers.

On October 30, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) indicated that it intends to appeal to the Fifth Circuit a federal district court ruling from 2016 that invalidated Obama-era overtime changes.

A Department of Labor (DOL) 2016 Final Rule pushed federal regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that would have more than doubled the “threshold” below which nearly every salaried employee would be entitled to overtime. In November 2016, a federal district court prevented the new threshold from coming into effect, and the subsequent election of President Trump called into doubt whether revised rules would ever be implemented.

The hour has arrived. Last summer, the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor announced substantial revisions to federal regulations delineating who is exempt from overtime pay. After almost a year of waiting (and over 290,000 comments to the draft rule), the DOL announced this week that it will be publishing the final form of its revised overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This final publication will occur on Monday, May 23, 2016, but the pre-publication version is publicly available now.

The California Court of Appeals recently considered whether a compensation scheme which is based solely upon the number of hours worked, with no guaranteed minimum, may be considered a “salary” within the meaning of wage and hour laws. 

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Christopher et al. v. SmithKline Beecham, finding that SmithKline properly classified its pharmaceutical sales representatives as "outside salespersons" and thus exempt under the wage and hour requirements set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether GlaxoSmithKline PLC's offsite and travelling drug sales representatives are entitled to overtime pay. In the past, these representatives have been deemed "exempt" as outside salespeople and not eligible for overtime. Specifically, the Court is presently considering:

When is a store manager truly a manager, and not just a lead hourly employee, for purposes of the executive exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act? Employers recently received some positive guidance from the South Carolina district court in Gooden v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 3:10-cv-1059, Dkt. 60, (U.S.D.C. So. Car. Ap. 3, 2012) and Thomas v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 3:10-cv-1061, Dkt. 59, (U.S.D.C. So. Car. Ap. 3, 2012).

Sales managers for a company that owns high-end banquet halls were expected to maintain relationships with existing clients and secure new clients for custom events, such as weddings or corporate parties. Sales managers functioned as the primary client contact and were responsible for designing, coordinating and executing the event to the client’s approval within the fee structure outlined by their employer. They were given a handbook that contained some sales guidelines, but the handbook did not provide prescribed techniques or “sales pitches.” Also, the sales managers could neither issue discounts to clients nor sign-off on client contracts without the employer’s consent. They received salaries and were not paid overtime if they worked more than 40 hours in a week. A group of former sales managers challenged this practice and sued to recover overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The employer claimed that the sales managers were not entitled to overtime because they fit within the statute’s “administrative exemption.” To establish that the sales managers qualified under the administrative exemption, the employer had to demonstrate that the sales managers routinely exercised “discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the sales managers were exempt in spite of their lack of authority to make financial and contractual decisions on behalf of their employer because their work in securing clients and creating a custom product, personalized to individual tastes and budgets, was sufficient to meet the independent discretion requirement. Regarding the handbook, the court concluded that the rules were not so numerous or specific as to restrict the judgment required to engage with clients and prospective clients. Employers are reminded that not all “sales managers” will meet the independent-discretion factor of the administrative exemption. Employers are urged to work with their counsel to review the business practices in place and the responsibilities assigned to a position to determine if the position is properly classified as exempt from the overtime requirements.

Today the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in Harris v. Superior Court. This case dealt with whether or not insurance adjusters were properly classified as exempt employees, or whether they should have been entitled to overtime compensation under the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders and the California Labor Code.

On September 9, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that social workers in the state of Washington are not “learned professionals” under the Fair Labor Standards Act and therefore, are not exempt from overtime compensation.

Unlicensed junior accounts who performed audits and provided other accounting services for their employer’s clients brought a wage-and-hour class action against the employer for overtime pay they were allegedly owed. The employer argued that the accountants were exempt from the wage-and-hour law’s overtime provisions under the “professional” exemption. Under California law, to claim the “professional” exemption, the employer must show that the employees were: (1) licensed or certified by the State of California and primarily engaged in law, medicine, dentistry, or accounting; or (2) primarily engaged in an occupation commonly recognized as a learned or artistic profession. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the accountants could be exempt if their job duties indicated that they were engaged in a “learned profession,” even though they did not have CPA licenses. The court emphasized that when determining whether an unlicensed accountant is exempt or non-exempt, a “fact-specific inquiry” is required. This case serves as a reminder that whether an employee is exempt or non-exempt should not be determined categorically, but should be determined according to the job duties the employee actually performs.