overtime claim in California

2016(See Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Brinker).) In fact, the evidence presented in the trial court is to the contrary: the employee handbooks, which advise employees that employer pays only for pre-approved overtime, and the new-employee orientation that reiterates the overtime rule, demonstrate that the employer neither encourages nor condones individual decisions to start work before the scheduled shift time; the record establishes that none of the hourly employees sought either permission to work overtime or to be paid for overtime.

2014Application of these principles to the overtime claim in this litigation The theory of liability in this litigation — that, by classifying all managerial employees as exempt, JCS violated mandatory overtime wage laws — is, to paraphrase Brinker, “by its nature a common question eminently suited for class treatment.” (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1033 .) Indeed, significant common issues pervade this litigation.

2005HO [A defense to an overtime claim] is not shown when an employer does not inquire about the law’s requirements, simply follows an industry trend of not complying with the law, or violates the law in order to remain competitive.” (Keeley v. Loomis Fargo & Co. (3d Cir. 1999) 183 F.3d 257, 270 ; see id. at pp. 269-271 & fn. 10 [“good faith” defenses to FLSA action cannot be based on industry custom or market forces]; Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 179-181 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 , 999 P.2d 706 ] [in action under UCL, trial court may consider employer’s “good

2005HO [A defense to an overtime claim] is not shown when an employer does not inquire about the law’s requirements, simply follows an industry trend of not complying with the law, or violates the law in order to remain competitive.” (Keeley v. Loomis Fargo & Co. (3d Cir. 1999) 183 F.3d 257, 270 ; see id. at pp. 269-271 & fn. 10 [“good faith” defenses to FLSA action cannot be based on industry custom or market forces]; Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 179-181 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 , 999 P.2d 706 ] [in action under UCL, trial court may consider employer’s “good

2019(Singh v. Superior Court, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 393 [interpretation of wage order must not lead to “absurd consequences”]; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 44 [construction of wage order must not render part of it “meaningless”]; Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1027 [wage orders “must be given ‘independent effect’ ”].) We thus conclude Liday was not subject to any set number of regular, nonovertime work hours under Wage Order 15 on the ground she received a fixed salary.

2019(Singh v. Superior Court, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 393 [interpretation of wage order must not lead to “absurd consequences”]; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 44 [construction of wage order must not render part of it “meaningless”]; Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1027 [wage orders “must be given ‘independent effect’ ”].) We thus conclude Liday was not subject to any set number of regular, nonovertime work hours under Wage Order 15 on the ground she received a fixed salary.

2019(Singh v. Superior Court, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 393 [interpretation of wage order must not lead to “absurd consequences”]; Gonzalez, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 44 [construction of wage order must not render part of it “meaningless”]; Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1027 [wage orders “must be given ‘independent effect’ ”].) We thus conclude Liday was not subject to any set number of regular, nonovertime work hours under Wage Order 15 on the ground she received a fixed salary.

2017Overtime Pay Rules and Exemptions “California‟s Labor Code generally requires overtime pay for employees working more than [eight hours in one workday or] 40 hours in a given workweek.” (Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 974, 978 (Dailey); see Lab.

2014FLSA overtime The FLSA generally requires employers to pay covered employees one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. ( 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1).) This overtime requirement does not apply to those persons who are employed in domestic service to provide companionship services to individuals who are unable to care for themselves because of age or infirmity. ( 29 U.S.C. § 213 (a)(15); McCune, supra, 894 F.2d at pp. 1107-1108.) However, this exemption does not apply when the performance of general household work (unrelated to the care of the aged

2013(Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1113-1115 [explaining “ ‘ “[t]he constitutional right to petition . . . includes the basic act of filing litigation or otherwise seeking administrative action” ’ ” and finding tenant complaint to Department of Housing and Urban Development and small claims action were encompassed by section 425.16]; see also Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 736 (Jarrow Formulas) [“ ‘the Legislature’s intent consistently has been to protect all direct petitioning of governmental bodies’ ”].) Plaintiff argues Mun’s fil

2013(Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1113-1115 [explaining “ ‘ “[t]he constitutional right to petition . . . includes the basic act of filing litigation or otherwise seeking administrative action” ’ ” and finding tenant complaint to Department of Housing and Urban Development and small claims action were encompassed by section 425.16]; see also Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 736 (Jarrow Formulas) [“ ‘the Legislature’s intent consistently has been to protect all direct petitioning of governmental bodies’ ”].) Plaintiff argues Mun’s fil

2011Edwards and Sons, Inc. (S.D.Cal. 2006) 444 ESupp.2d 1100, 1119 [citing Ramirez and Keyes Motors as requiring that to be a commission “[t]he amount of compensation must make up a percentage of the product or service’s price”]; Romero v. Producers Dairy Foods, Inc. (E.D.Cal. 2006) 235 F.R.D. 474, 488 [same].) Most recently, in Harris, Division Four of this Appellate District considered whether the commission exemption applied to exempt from the overtime requirement telemarketers who sold magazine subscriptions.

2009(See Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 938, 955 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 817 ].) “[T]o the extent the trial court’s determination that the arbitration agreement was [valid] turned on the resolution of conflicts in the evidence or on factual inferences to be drawn from the evidence, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and review the trial court’s factual determinations under *1288 the substantial evidence standard.” (Baker v. Osborne Development Corp. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 884, 892 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 854 ].) A. Preliminary Issues At the o

2009(See Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 938, 955 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 817 ].) “[T]o the extent the trial court’s determination that the arbitration agreement was [valid] turned on the resolution of conflicts in the evidence or on factual inferences to be drawn from the evidence, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and review the trial court’s factual determinations under *1288 the substantial evidence standard.” (Baker v. Osborne Development Corp. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 884, 892 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 854 ].) A. Preliminary Issues At the o

2009(See Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 938, 955 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 817 ].) “[T]o the extent the trial court’s determination that the arbitration agreement was [valid] turned on the resolution of conflicts in the evidence or on factual inferences to be drawn from the evidence, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and review the trial court’s factual determinations under *1288 the substantial evidence standard.” (Baker v. Osborne Development Corp. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 884, 892 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 854 ].) A. Preliminary Issues At the o

2009(See Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 938, 955 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 817 ].) “[T]o the extent the trial court’s determination that the arbitration agreement was [valid] turned on the resolution of conflicts in the evidence or on factual inferences to be drawn from the evidence, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and review the trial court’s factual determinations under *1288 the substantial evidence standard.” (Baker v. Osborne Development Corp. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 884, 892 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 854 ].) A. Preliminary Issues At the o

2009Were we to condone merit-based challenges as part and parcel of the certification process, similar procedural protections would be necessary to ensure that an otherwise certifiable class is not unfairly denied the opportunity to proceed on legitimate claims. . . . [Procedures already exist for early merit challenges.” (Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 439-441 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , 2 P.3d 27 ], citations & fn. omitted.) Here, the trial court granted a de facto summary adjudication motion on the overtime claim in determining the enforceability of a class arbitration waiver.

2009Were we to condone merit-based challenges as part and parcel of the certification process, similar procedural protections would be necessary to ensure that an otherwise certifiable class is not unfairly denied the opportunity to proceed on legitimate claims. . . . [Procedures already exist for early merit challenges.” (Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 439-441 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 , 2 P.3d 27 ], citations & fn. omitted.) Here, the trial court granted a de facto summary adjudication motion on the overtime claim in determining the enforceability of a class arbitration waiver.

2007(Gerhard v. Stephens (1968) 68 Cal.2d 864, 913 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 612 , 442 P.2d 692 ]; Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 799, 811 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 736 ].) Here; appellants contend that the account managers were entitled to overtime pay under Labor Code section 510, and that IKON misclassified them as exempt from this overtime requirement. 5 As an affirmative defense, IKON contends that the subclass members were exempt from overtime laws *1451 under the outside sales person exemption, which may apply to employees who spend more than half their time outside the office on sale

2007(Gerhard v. Stephens (1968) 68 Cal.2d 864, 913 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 612 , 442 P.2d 692 ]; Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 799, 811 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 736 ].) Here; appellants contend that the account managers were entitled to overtime pay under Labor Code section 510, and that IKON misclassified them as exempt from this overtime requirement. 5 As an affirmative defense, IKON contends that the subclass members were exempt from overtime laws *1451 under the outside sales person exemption, which may apply to employees who spend more than half their time outside the office on sale

2007(D.Kan. 1989) 129 F.R.D. 178, 180 ; Slanina v. William Penn Parking Corp., Inc. (W.D.Pa. 1985) 106 F.R.D. 419, 423-424 [indications that if individual joinder were required, “ ‘most, if not all, of the current employees will be hesitant to join’ ”].) “[I]t needs no argument to show that fear of economic retaliation might often operate to induce aggrieved employees quietly to accept substandard conditions.” (Mitchell v. DeMario Jewelry (1960) 361 U.S. 288, 292 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 323 , 80 S.Ct. 332 ].) Circuit City points out that retaliation by the employer against an employee who files an overtime cl

2007(D.Kan. 1989) 129 F.R.D. 178, 180 ; Slanina v. William Penn Parking Corp., Inc. (W.D.Pa. 1985) 106 F.R.D. 419, 423-424 [indications that if individual joinder were required, “ ‘most, if not all, of the current employees will be hesitant to join’ ”].) “[I]t needs no argument to show that fear of economic retaliation might often operate to induce aggrieved employees quietly to accept substandard conditions.” (Mitchell v. DeMario Jewelry (1960) 361 U.S. 288, 292 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 323 , 80 S.Ct. 332 ].) Circuit City points out that retaliation by the employer against an employee who files an overtime cl

2007(Gerhard v. Stephens (1968) 68 Cal.2d 864, 913 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 612 , 442 P.2d 692 ]; Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 799, 811 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 736 ].) Here; appellants contend that the account managers were entitled to overtime pay under Labor Code section 510, and that IKON misclassified them as exempt from this overtime requirement. 5 As an affirmative defense, IKON contends that the subclass members were exempt from overtime laws *1451 under the outside sales person exemption, which may apply to employees who spend more than half their time outside the office on sale

2007(Gerhard v. Stephens (1968) 68 Cal.2d 864, 913 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 612 , 442 P.2d 692 ]; Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 799, 811 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 736 ].) Here; appellants contend that the account managers were entitled to overtime pay under Labor Code section 510, and that IKON misclassified them as exempt from this overtime requirement. 5 As an affirmative defense, IKON contends that the subclass members were exempt from overtime laws *1451 under the outside sales person exemption, which may apply to employees who spend more than half their time outside the office on sale

2007(D.Kan. 1989) 129 F.R.D. 178, 180 ; Slanina v. William Penn Parking Corp., Inc. (W.D.Pa. 1985) 106 F.R.D. 419, 423-424 [indications that if individual joinder were required, “ ‘most, if not all, of the current employees will be hesitant to join’ ”].) “[I]t needs no argument to show that fear of economic retaliation might often operate to induce aggrieved employees quietly to accept substandard conditions.” (Mitchell v. DeMario Jewelry (1960) 361 U.S. 288, 292 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 323 , 80 S.Ct. 332 ].) Circuit City points out that retaliation by the employer against an employee who files an overtime cl

2005HO [A defense to an overtime claim] is not shown when an employer does not inquire about the law’s requirements, simply follows an industry trend of not complying with the law, or violates the law in order to remain competitive.” (Keeley v. Loomis Fargo & Co. (3d Cir. 1999) 183 F.3d 257, 270 ; see id. at pp. 269-271 & fn. 10 [“good faith” defenses to FLSA action cannot be based on industry custom or market forces]; Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 179-181 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 , 999 P.2d 706 ] [in action under UCL, trial court may consider employer’s “good

2005HO [A defense to an overtime claim] is not shown when an employer does not inquire about the law’s requirements, simply follows an industry trend of not complying with the law, or violates the law in order to remain competitive.” (Keeley v. Loomis Fargo & Co. (3d Cir. 1999) 183 F.3d 257, 270 ; see id. at pp. 269-271 & fn. 10 [“good faith” defenses to FLSA action cannot be based on industry custom or market forces]; Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 179-181 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 , 999 P.2d 706 ] [in action under UCL, trial court may consider employer’s “good

2005HO [A defense to an overtime claim] is not shown when an employer does not inquire about the law’s requirements, simply follows an industry trend of not complying with the law, or violates the law in order to remain competitive.” (Keeley v. Loomis Fargo & Co. (3d Cir. 1999) 183 F.3d 257, 270 ; see id. at pp. 269-271 & fn. 10 [“good faith” defenses to FLSA action cannot be based on industry custom or market forces]; Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 179-181 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 , 999 P.2d 706 ] [in action under UCL, trial court may consider employer’s “good

2005HO [A defense to an overtime claim] is not shown when an employer does not inquire about the law’s requirements, simply follows an industry trend of not complying with the law, or violates the law in order to remain competitive.” (Keeley v. Loomis Fargo & Co. (3d Cir. 1999) 183 F.3d 257, 270 ; see id. at pp. 269-271 & fn. 10 [“good faith” defenses to FLSA action cannot be based on industry custom or market forces]; Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 179-181 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 , 999 P.2d 706 ] [in action under UCL, trial court may consider employer’s “good