Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 California opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Companygreen2 sentences2022The work actually performed by the employee during the course of the workweek must, first and foremost, be examined and the amount of time the employee spends on such work, together with the employer’s realistic expectations and the realistic requirements of the job, shall be considered in determining whether the employee satisfies this requirement. “(g) Such employee must also earn a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two (2) times the state minimum wage for full-time employment. . . .” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 1(A)(2); accord, Combs, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 1254 . 2020The trial court was not required to include governing legal principles in any greater detail. 9 actually performed by the employee during the course of the workweek must, first and foremost, be examined and the amount of time the employee spends on such work, together with the employer’s realistic expectations and the realistic requirements of the job, shall be considered in determining whether the employee satisfies this requirement.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11050, subd. 1(B)(1)(e), italics added.) “The significance of the employer’s realistic expectations and the realistic requirements o | 3 | 6 |
Combs v. SKYRIVER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.green2 sentences2022The work actually performed by the employee during the course of the workweek must, first and foremost, be examined and the amount of time the employee spends on such work, together with the employer’s realistic expectations and the realistic requirements of the job, shall be considered in determining whether the employee satisfies this requirement. “(g) Such employee must also earn a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two (2) times the state minimum wage for full-time employment. . . .” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 1(A)(2); accord, Combs, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 1254 . 2022The work actually performed by the employee during the course of the workweek must, first and foremost, be examined and the amount of time the employee spends on such work, together with the employer’s realistic expectations and the realistic requirements of the job, shall be considered in determining whether the employee satisfies this requirement. “(g) Such employee must also earn a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two (2) times the state minimum wage for full-time employment. . . .” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 1(A)(2); accord, Combs, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 1254 . | 2 | 2 |
Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.green2 sentences2015(See Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, 27 [ 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 371 , 325 P.3d 916 ] (Duran); Dailey, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 989 [classification issue requires proof of not only employer expectations but also “whether proposed class members in fact engage primarily in nonexempt activities”].) “No bright-line rule can be established classifying everyone with a particular job title as per se exempt or nonexempt . . . .” (United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1015 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 834 ].) Thus, even though “[e]mployers often treat all workers 2015(See Duran v. U.S. Bank Nation Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, 27 (Duran); Dailey, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 989 [classification issue requires proof of not only employer expectations but also “whether proposed class members in fact engage primarily in nonexempt activities”].) “No bright-line rule can be established classifying everyone with a particular job title as per se exempt or nonexempt.” (United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1015 .) Thus, even though “[e]mployers often treat all workers within a job position as either exempt or nonexempt” in reality, “exem | 2 | 2 |
Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn.green2 sentences2015(See Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, 27 [ 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 371 , 325 P.3d 916 ] (Duran); Dailey, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 989 [classification issue requires proof of not only employer expectations but also “whether proposed class members in fact engage primarily in nonexempt activities”].) “No bright-line rule can be established classifying everyone with a particular job title as per se exempt or nonexempt . . . .” (United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1015 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 834 ].) Thus, even though “[e]mployers often treat all workers 2015(See Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, 27 [ 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 371 , 325 P.3d 916 ] (Duran); Dailey, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 989 [classification issue requires proof of not only employer expectations but also “whether proposed class members in fact engage primarily in nonexempt activities”].) “No bright-line rule can be established classifying everyone with a particular job title as per se exempt or nonexempt . . . .” (United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1015 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 834 ].) Thus, even though “[e]mployers often treat all workers | 2 | 2 |
Heyen v. Safeway Inc.green2 sentences2014The work actually performed by the employee during the course of the workweek must, first and foremost, be examined and the amount of time the employee spends on such work, together with the employer’s realistic expectations and the realistic requirements of the job, shall be considered in determining whether the employee satisfies this requirement.” (Id., subd. 1(B)(1)(e); see Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 802 (Ramirez) [in determining whether employee is an outside salesperson, trial court should consider both how the employee actually spends his or her time and whet 2014The work actually performed by the employee during the course of the workweek must, first and foremost, be examined and the amount of time the employee spends on such work, together with the employer’s realistic expectations and the realistic requirements of the job, shall be considered in determining whether the employee satisfies this requirement.” (Id., subd. 1(B)(1)(e); see Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785, 802 (Ramirez) [in determining whether employee is an outside salesperson, trial court should consider both how the employee actually spends his or her time and whethe | 2 | 2 |
Conley v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.green2 sentences2010Full-time employment is defined in California Labor Code Section 515[, subdivision ](c) as 40 hours per week." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 1(A)(2).) IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001 defines the term "primarily," as that word is used in California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 11040, subdivision 1(A)(2)(f), as meaning "more than one-half the employee's work time." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 2(N).) [19] An opinion letter issued by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement has no binding effect on this court. ( Conley v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2005) 131 Cal.App. 2010Full-time employment is defined in California Labor Code Section 515[, subdivision ](c) as 40 hours per week." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 1(A)(2).) IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001 defines the term "primarily," as that word is used in California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 11040, subdivision 1(A)(2)(f), as meaning "more than one-half the employee's work time." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 2(N).) [19] An opinion letter issued by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement has no binding effect on this court. ( Conley v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2005) 131 Cal.App. | 2 | 2 |
Taylor v. United Parcel Service Inc.green2 sentences2015(See Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, 27 [ 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 371 , 325 P.3d 916 ] (Duran); Dailey, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 989 [classification issue requires proof of not only employer expectations but also “whether proposed class members in fact engage primarily in nonexempt activities”].) “No bright-line rule can be established classifying everyone with a particular job title as per se exempt or nonexempt . . . .” (United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1015 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 834 ].) Thus, even though “[e]mployers often treat all workers 2015(See Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, 27 [ 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 371 , 325 P.3d 916 ] (Duran); Dailey, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 989 [classification issue requires proof of not only employer expectations but also “whether proposed class members in fact engage primarily in nonexempt activities”].) “No bright-line rule can be established classifying everyone with a particular job title as per se exempt or nonexempt . . . .” (United Parcel Service Wage & Hour Cases (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1015 [ 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 834 ].) Thus, even though “[e]mployers often treat all workers | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martinez v. Joe's Crab Shack Holdings
green
2 sentences2018And the need to focus on those realistic expectations and requirements to determine whether common issues predominate and a class action provides an effective means of resolving the plaintiffs' overtime claims-our holding in Joe's Crab Shack II , supra , 231 Cal.App.4th 362 , 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 867 -was central to the Supreme Court's landmark class action ruling in Sav-On , supra , 34 Cal.4th at pages 336-337, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 906 , 96 P.3d 194 : "Any dispute over 'how the employee actually spends his or her time' [citation], of course, has the potential to generate individual issues. 2018And the need to focus on those realistic expectations and requirements to determine whether common issues predominate and a class action provides an effective means of resolving the plaintiffs’ overtime claims— our holding in Joe’s Crab Shack II, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th 362— was central to the Supreme Court’s landmark class action ruling in Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pages 336-337: “Any dispute over ‘how the employee actually spends his or her time’ [citation], of course, has the potential to generate individual issues. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Martinez v. Landry's Rests., Inc.
green
1 sentence2020The trial court was not required to include governing legal principles in any greater detail. 9 actually performed by the employee during the course of the workweek must, first and foremost, be examined and the amount of time the employee spends on such work, together with the employer’s realistic expectations and the realistic requirements of the job, shall be considered in determining whether the employee satisfies this requirement.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11050, subd. 1(B)(1)(e), italics added.) “The significance of the employer’s realistic expectations and the realistic requirements o | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2018And the need to focus on those realistic expectations and requirements to determine whether common issues predominate and a class action provides an effective means of resolving the plaintiffs' overtime claims-our holding in Joe's Crab Shack II , supra , 231 Cal.App.4th 362 , 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 867 -was central to the Supreme Court's landmark class action ruling in Sav-On , supra , 34 Cal.4th at pages 336-337, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 906 , 96 P.3d 194 : "Any dispute over 'how the employee actually spends his or her time' [citation], of course, has the potential to generate individual issues. 2018And the need to focus on those realistic expectations and requirements to determine whether common issues predominate and a class action provides an effective means of resolving the plaintiffs' overtime claims-our holding in Joe's Crab Shack II , supra , 231 Cal.App.4th 362 , 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 867 -was central to the Supreme Court's landmark class action ruling in Sav-On , supra , 34 Cal.4th at pages 336-337, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 906 , 96 P.3d 194 : "Any dispute over 'how the employee actually spends his or her time' [citation], of course, has the potential to generate individual issues. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.