green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
20.3 score
“thus a reduction in the paid leave time does not affect the plaintiffs' status as salaried employees.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 49 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Higgins v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc.
thus a reduction in the paid leave time does not affect the plaintiffs' status as salaried employees.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wood v. KINETIC SYSTEMS, INC.
Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir.1994); 29 C.F.R. § 541.100 (a).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Louisville, Division of Fire v. Fire Service Managers Ass'n Ex Rel. Kaelin
Although the salary basis regulation prohibits deductions from an employee's salary for personal absences of less than a day, the regulation does not prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to make up the time he misses."); Schaefer v. Indiana Michigan Power Co., 358 F.3d 394, 400 (6th Cir.2004) ("Exempt status, however, is only affected by monetary deductions for work absences and not by non-monetary deductions from fringe benefits such as personal or sick time."); Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1994) ("We conclude that `amount' refers to `cash' or `salary.' …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Webster v. PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES OF WA., INC.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The district court lastly asks whether accrued leave is "salary" and cites to a comparison between two Ninth Circuit cases, Abshire, 908 F.2d at 487 n. 3 and Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261-62 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Webster v. Public School Employees of Washington, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The district court lastly asks whether accrued leave is “salary” and cites to a comparison between two Ninth Circuit cases, Abshire, 908 F.2d at 487 n.3 and Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261-62 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
White v. San Mateo County
“Specifically, and for our purposes, the [employee] must (1) be paid on a salary basis (2) of not less than $250 per week (3) for the primary duty of managing a recognized department or subdivision and (4) regularly direct two or more employees.” Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trina Richardson v. Sunset Science Park Credit Union, a Federally Chartered Credit Union
Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jay Webster Janet Webster, Husband and Wife and the Marital Communitycomposed Thereof v. Public School Employees of Washington, Inc.
When the issue of deductions for partial-day absences from leave time was squarely presented to this court in Barner, which involved city employees, we explicitly rejected the Abshire footnote, holding that “amount” and “compensation” in the regulation refers to salary and therefore “a reduction in the paid leave time does not affect the Plaintiffs’ status as salaried employees.” Barn er, 17 F.3d at 1261-62.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doherty v. Center for Assisted Reproduction, P.A.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, e.g., Cooke v. General Dynamics Corp., 993 F.Supp. 50, 53 (D.Conn.1997); Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261 (9th Cir.1994); Kuchinskas, 840 F.Supp. at 1556 ; cf. York v. City of Wichita Falls, 944 F.2d 236, 242 (5th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kavanagh v. City of Phoenix
See Boykin v. Boeing Co., 128 F.3d 1279, 1281-82 (9th Cir.1997) (“The DOL has unequivocally and consistently declared that additional compensation in the form of hourly overtime payment does not defeat exempt status under the salary-basis test.”); Barrier v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1994) (deductions of less than one day from paid absence reserves do not constitute deductions from salary and, therefore, do not jeopardize the exemption).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Caperci v. Rite Aid Corp.
Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1994) (citations and footnotes omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Webster v. Public School Employees of Washington, Inc.
Barrier v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261 (9th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cash v. Conn Appliances, Inc.
See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 , —, 117 S.Ct. 905, 908 , 137 L.Ed.2d 79, 86 (1997); Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1994).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hood v. Mercy Healthcare Arizona
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Plaintiffs’ status as salaried employee[s].” Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261 (9th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Spradling v. City of Tulsa
Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jess D. Hernandez Timothy J. Graber Jimmy D. Dalton John T. Chambers Thomas W. Skelly and William A. Zastrow v. City of Santa Ana
Employees fit within the overtime-exempt category for administrative or executive employees where they meet both of two tests: a "duties test" and a "salary test." Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1994). 9 In this case the district court concluded that the Fire Chiefs were entitled to overtime compensation solely because they did not meet the "salary test." The district court did not reach the issue of the "duties test." We conclude that the district court did not err when it determined that the Fire Chiefs did not meet the "salary test" and were, accordingly, not exemp…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael T. McGuire James P. Klum, Grant M. Coffey, Patrick A. Dooney, Jerry L. Ivie v. City of Portland, Oregon
(2×)
Id. at 1262-63.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yourman v. Dinkins
See Balgowan v. State of New Jersey, --- F.3d ---- (3d Cir.1996); Carpenter v. City & County of Denver, 82 F.3d 353, 359 (10th Cir.1996); Bankston v. State of Illinois, 60 F.3d 1249, 1253 (7th Cir.1995); Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1262 (9th Cir.1994); Kinney v. District of Columbia, 994 F.2d 6, 11 (D.C.Cir.1993); Michigan Association of Governmental Employees v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 992 F.2d 82, 86 (6th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tracy J. Jones v. George R. Tiller, M.D., P.A. And George R. Tiller, Individually
Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261 (9th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
James L. Spykerman John Asselin Robert Bement Pat Dalton v. Ventura County Fire Protection District
The first part of this test is a "duties test" and the second is a "salary test." Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Laurel Adam Edna Smiley Joan Valdes, on Behalf of Themselves and Other Similarly Situated v. County of San Diego
Thus, through September 6, 1991, for public sector employees to qualify for the executive and administrative exemption to the FLSA, they need only have satisfied the duties test, see Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1994) (applying duties test).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Service Employees International Union, Local 102 Probation Officers Association Roslinda Arellanes Teresa Ayala Renee U. Bonner v. County of San Diego
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The first part is a ‘duties test.’ The second part is a ‘salary test.’ ” Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1994) (citations omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Michigan Supervisors' Office & Professional Employees International Union, William T. Gannon, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated Supervisory Security Personnel Employed by Travis U. Jones, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated Civilian Employees of v. Michigan Department of Corrections Michigan Department of Civil Service
(3×)
No. 99-150, 99 Stat. 787, 788-89). 55 "Under the FLSA, all employees must ordinarily be paid one and one-half times their normal hourly wage for all hours exceeding forty hours worked in one week." Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing 29 U.S.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bowman v. City of Indianapolis
Union Local 102 v. San Diego, 35 F.3d 483, 486 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1994)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bennett v. City of Albuquerque
Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bowman v. City of Indianapolis
Union Local 102 v. San Diego, 35 F.3d 483, 486 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Ba rner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1994)). 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Service Employees International Union, Local 102 Probation Officers Association Roslinda Arellanes Teresa Ayala Renee U. Bonner v. County of San Diego
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
The first part is a ‘duties test.’ The second part is a ‘salary test.’ ” Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1994) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schmitt v. State of Kan.
Cf. Barrier v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that a reduction in paid leave time for partial day absences does not defeat salaried status); Kuchinskas v. Broward Cty., 840 F.Supp. 1548, 1555-56 (S.D.Fla.1993) (holding that reducing leave banks for partial day absences, requiring employees to keep time sheets, basing salary on 2,080 hours per year, inter alia, did not negate county employees’ status as salaried employees and convert them into hourly employees for the purposes of the FLSA); Fire Fighters Local 2141 v. City of Alexandria, Va., 720 F.Supp. 1230, 1…
cited
Cited "see"
Schaefer v. Indiana Michigan Power Co.
See Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Do v. Ocean Peace Inc.
See Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1994). 1.
cited
Cited "see"
Bora Do v. Ocean Peace Inc, in Personam Ocean Peace F/t, Official No. 677399, Her Engine, MacHinery Appurtenances and Cargo, in Rem, Tinh Pham v. Ocean Peace Inc, in Personam United States Seafoods Lp, in Personam Seafreeze Alaska F/t, Official No. 517242, Her Engines, MacHinery Apurtenances, and Cargo, in Rem
See Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Michael A. Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc.
(2×)
See Barner v. City of Novato , 17 F.3d 1256, 1260-62 (9th Cir. 1994); Wainscoat v. Reynolds Elec. & Eng'g.
discussed
Cited "see"
Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc.
(2×)
See Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1260-62 (9th Cir.1994); Wainscoat v. Reynolds Elec. & Eng’g.
cited
Cited "see"
Copas v. East Bay Municipal Utility District
See Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cruz v. McAllister Bros., Inc.
(2×)
See Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1994); York v. City of Wichita Falls, Tex., 944 F.2d 236, 242 (5th Cir.1991); Caperci v. Rite Aid Corp., 43 F.Supp.2d 83, 92-93 (D.Mass.1999) (surveying cases); Aiken v. County of Hampton, S.C., 977 F.Supp. 390, 396-97 (D.S.C.1997) (“A reduction in paid leave time does not affect an employee’s status *290 as a salaried employee.”), aff'd, 172 F.3d 43 (4th Cir.1998) (Table case); Yuen v. U.S. Asia Commercial Dev.
discussed
Cited "see"
Yuen v. U.S. Asia Commercial Development Corp.
See Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261 (9th Cir.1994) (reduction in paid leave is not deduction of salary that defeats FLSA exemption for "salary basis” employees); Fire Fighters Local 2141 v. City of Alexandria, Va., 720 F.Supp. 1230, 1232 (E.D.Va.1989), aff'd, 912 F.2d 463 (4th Cir.1990) (TABLE) (docking of personal or sick leave time is not a deduction of salary that defeats FLSA exemption for "salary basis” employees). 5 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Cooke v. General Dynamics Corp.
See Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d at 1261-62 (holding that the words “amount” and “compensation” in the regulation referred to cash or salary rather than to all forms of compensation).
cited
Cited "see"
Bankston v. Illinois
See Barrier v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256 , 1259-60 (9th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bankston v. State Of Illinois
See Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1994). 16 Generally, an employer cannot show that an employee is exempt if the employer docks the employee's pay for partial day absences, violations of rules other than significant safety rules, and other barometers of the quantity or quality of the employee's work.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hurley v. State of Oregon
See Abshire v. County of Kern, 908 F.2d 483, 487 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that the proper inquiry is not whether deductions were actually made, but rather whether an employee's pay was "subject to" such a deduction), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1068 , 111 S.Ct. 785 , 112 L.Ed.2d 848 (1991) Our recent opinion in Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir.1994), is not to the contrary.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Patrick Prudhomme
See United States v. Foster, 985 F.2d 466, 407 (9th Cir.), partial reh'g granted on other grounds, 995 F.2d 881 (9th Cir.1993), amended, 17 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir.1994). 6 Next, Prudhomme contends that trial court should have given him a downward departure for mitigating circumstances.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Clawson v. Grays Harbor College Dist. No. 2
Other than in these specific situations, employees paid on a "salary basis" may not be subject to deductions. [48] Drinkwitz, 140 Wash.2d at 304 , 996 P.2d 582 ; see also 29 C.F.R. § 541.118 (a) (1975). [49] Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1262 (9th Cir.1994). [50] Drinkwitz, 140 Wash.2d at 304 , 996 P.2d 582 (quoting Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 , 117 S.Ct. 905 , 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997)). [51] Brief of Resp't at 46. [52] Clawson, 109 Wash.App. at 386 , 35 P.3d 1176 . [53] Id. [54] Clawson, 109 Wash.App. at 387 , 35 P.3d 1176 . [55] Clerk's Papers at 425. [56] See, e.g., Demos v. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Worley v. City of Cincinnati, Unpublished Decision (8-25-2000)
See, also, Barner v. City of Novato (C.A.9, 1994), 17 F.3d 1256 , 1259-1260 . 18 See Section 541.118(a), Title 29, C.F.R.; Michigan Assn. of Governmental Emp. v. Michigan Dept. of Corr., supra, at 83. 19 See Section 541.118(a), Title 29, C.F.R. 20 See id. at 84 . 21 See Spralding v. City of Tulsa (C.A. 10, 1996), 95 F.3d 1492 , 1496 ; Service Emp.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aiken v. County of Hampton, SC
Compare Thomas v. County of Fairfax, 758 F.Supp. 353, 366 (E.D.Va.1991) (stat *397 ing that while the concept of salary, strictly construed, may not include leave, the docking of one hour’s .leave affronts the concept of a salaried executive) with Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir.1994) (determining that reduction in leave allowances for partial day absences does not affect a salaried employee’s status) and International Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Alexandria Local 2141 v. City of Alexandria, 720 F.Supp. 1230, 1232 (E.D.Va.1989) (determining the docking of leave or accrued comp…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Futral v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Corrections
See also Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1261-62 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that a reduction in paid leave time for partial day absences does not defeat salaried status); Kuchinskas v. Broward Cty., 840 F.Supp. 1548, 1555-56 (S.D.Fla.1993), aff'd, 86 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1080 , 137 L.Ed.2d 215 (1997) (holding that reducing leave banks for partial day absences, requiring employees to keep time sheets, basing salary of 2,080 hours per year, inter alia, did not negate county employees’ status as salaried employees and convert them into hourly emplo…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Dell Hackett, and Other Similarly Situated Employees Eric R. Langford v. Lane County
See, e.g., Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir.1994); McGuire v. City of Portland, Oregon, 91 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir.1996) (filed this day).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Meringolo v. City of New York
See e.g., Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1262 (9th Cir.1994); McDonnell v. City of Omaha, 999 F.2d 293 (8th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 1188 , 127 L.Ed.2d 538 (1994); Atlanta Professional Firefighters Union, Local 134 v. City of Atlanta, 920 F.2d 800 (11th Cir.1991); McGrath v. City of Philadelphia, 864 F.Supp. 466 (E.D.Pa.1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McCloskey v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority
See, e.g., Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d 1256, 1262 (9th Cir.1994) (where there was no express policy of deducting from exempt employees’ pay, employer must actually make deductions to lose exemption); McDonnell v. City of Omaha, 999 F.2d 293, 297 (8th Cir.1993) (“subject to” language does not mean that a possible or contingent reduction in salary violates salary basis test), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1188 , 127 L.Ed.2d 538 (1994); Atlanta Professional Firefighters Union, Local 134 v. City of Atlanta, 920 F.2d 800, 805 (11th Cir.1991) (actual deduction must be shown before …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Karla FOSTER, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Karla FOSTER, Defendant-Appellant
91-50645.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 7, 1994.
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
Before: BROWNING, SCHROEDER and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.ORDER
The Opinion in this case, reported at 985 F.2d 466, is amended by deleting the first full paragraph on page 469.