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.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tracy Klinedinst v. Swift Investments, Inc.green1 sentence2005(See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 11000-11170.) 2 “The purpose behind the overtime pay requirement is two-fold: (1) to spread employment by encouraging employers to avoid overtime work and thereby employ additional workers on a regular basis; and (2) where the employer prefers overtime work, to compensate the employee for the burden of working longer hours.” (Donovan v. McKissick Products Co. (10th Cir. 1983) 719 F.2d 350, 352 ; accord, Klinedinst v. Swift Investments, Inc. (11th Cir. 2001) 260 F.3d 1251 , 1256.) Under state and federal law, overtime compensation is based on an employee’s “regu | 1 | 1 |
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.green2 sentences1989(See Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth (1985) 473 U.S. 614, 633 [ 87 L.Ed.2d 444, 459 , 105 S.Ct. 3346 ].) Finally, unlike the FLSA claim at issue in Barrentine , under the broad language of rule 347, as read into the U-4 form here, an arbitrator is empowered to grant Baker the relief requested, if warranted. 1989(See Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth (1985) 473 U.S. 614, 633 [ 87 L.Ed.2d 444, 459 , 105 S.Ct. 3346 ].) Finally, unlike the FLSA claim at issue in Barrentine , under the broad language of rule 347, as read into the U-4 form here, an arbitrator is empowered to grant Baker the relief requested, if warranted. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Abel v. Southern Shuttle Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015(Abel, supra, 631 F.3d at p. 1213 .) 5 using the employer’s service often travelled from other states. 2015(Abel, supra, 631 F.3d at p. 1213 .) 5 using the employer’s service often travelled from other states. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Ward v. United Airlines, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020SUMMARY OF THE EXECUTIVE EXEMPTION UNDER WAGE ORDER NO. 5 “‘Under California law, employees are entitled to overtime pay for any work in excess of eight hours in one workday, or 40 hours in any one workweek, unless the employer affirmatively establishes that the employee qualifies for a statutory exemption.’ [Citations.] Labor Code section 515, subdivision (a), authorizes the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) to establish exemptions from the overtime pay requirement for ‘“executive, administrative, and professional employees . . . primarily engaged in duties that meet the test of the exempti | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Watkins v. Wachovia Corp.
green
1 sentence2020There, another panel of this court found an employee validly released her wage claims when she “believed she possessed a claim for further overtime pay” and elected to receive “enhanced severance benefits” in exchange for releasing all her claims against her employer. ( Watkins, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1586-1587.) The trial court here reasoned the court in Watkins “would have no reason to emphasize the employee’s belief that she possessed an overtime pay claim if that belief were not required for a valid release. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020SUMMARY OF THE EXECUTIVE EXEMPTION UNDER WAGE ORDER NO. 5 “‘Under California law, employees are entitled to overtime pay for any work in excess of eight hours in one workday, or 40 hours in any one workweek, unless the employer affirmatively establishes that the employee qualifies for a statutory exemption.’ [Citations.] Labor Code section 515, subdivision (a), authorizes the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) to establish exemptions from the overtime pay requirement for ‘“executive, administrative, and professional employees . . . primarily engaged in duties that meet the test of the exempti | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Martinez v. Joe's Crab Shack Holdings
green
1 sentence2020SUMMARY OF THE EXECUTIVE EXEMPTION UNDER WAGE ORDER NO. 5 “‘Under California law, employees are entitled to overtime pay for any work in excess of eight hours in one workday, or 40 hours in any one workweek, unless the employer affirmatively establishes that the employee qualifies for a statutory exemption.’ [Citations.] Labor Code section 515, subdivision (a), authorizes the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) to establish exemptions from the overtime pay requirement for ‘“executive, administrative, and professional employees . . . primarily engaged in duties that meet the test of the exempti | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Company
green
1 sentence2014(See Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785, 795 .) The Legislature defunded the IWC in 2004; however, its wage 9 Housekeeping Industry,” a category that includes restaurants, is codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 11050. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
DONOVAN v. McKISSICK PRODUCTS COMPANY
green
1 sentence2005(See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 11000-11170.) 2 “The purpose behind the overtime pay requirement is two-fold: (1) to spread employment by encouraging employers to avoid overtime work and thereby employ additional workers on a regular basis; and (2) where the employer prefers overtime work, to compensate the employee for the burden of working longer hours.” (Donovan v. McKissick Products Co. (10th Cir. 1983) 719 F.2d 350, 352 ; accord, Klinedinst v. Swift Investments, Inc. (11th Cir. 2001) 260 F.3d 1251 , 1256.) Under state and federal law, overtime compensation is based on an employee’s “regu | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.