duties that meet test in California

2020Code, § 515, 5 subd. (a).)” (Batze v. Safeway, Inc. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 440, 471 , fn. omitted.) Pursuant to its statutory authority, the IWC promulgated several Wage Orders, codified in the California Code of Regulations, providing criteria for determining whether an employee may be classified as an exempt executive.2 (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11010 et seq.) Wage Order No. 7-2001 governs employees of the “mercantile industry.”3 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070 (Wage Order).) To be an exempt executive under this Wage Order, an employee must be “primarily engaged in duties which meet t

2019Code, § 515, subd. (a).)” (Batze, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 471 , fn. omitted.) Utilizing its statutory authority, the IWC promulgated several Wage Orders, codified in the California Code of Regulations, setting forth criteria for determining whether an employee may be classified as an exempt executive.4 (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11010 et seq.) As relevant here, Wage Order No. 7-2001 governs employees of the “mercantile industry.”5 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070 (Wage Order).) To be an exempt executive under this Wage Order, an employee must, inter alia, be “primarily engaged in dut

2026(Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 662, 667 .) The employer “ ‘bears the burden of proving the employee’s exemption as an affirmative defense.’ ” (Kizer v. Tristar Risk Management (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 830, 839 .) 21 When moving for summary judgment (or adjudication) based on “the assertion of an affirmative defense, . . . ‘the defendant has the initial burden to show that undisputed facts support each element of the affirmative defense.’ ” (Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 284, 289 .) “The defendant must demonstrate that under no hypothesis is th

2026(Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 662, 667 .) The employer “ ‘bears the burden of proving the employee’s exemption as an affirmative defense.’ ” (Kizer v. Tristar Risk Management (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 830, 839 .) 21 When moving for summary judgment (or adjudication) based on “the assertion of an affirmative defense, . . . ‘the defendant has the initial burden to show that undisputed facts support each element of the affirmative defense.’ ” (Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 284, 289 .) “The defendant must demonstrate that under no hypothesis is th

2026(Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 662, 667 .) The employer “ ‘bears the burden of proving the employee’s exemption as an affirmative defense.’ ” (Kizer v. Tristar Risk Management (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 830, 839 .) 21 When moving for summary judgment (or adjudication) based on “the assertion of an affirmative defense, . . . ‘the defendant has the initial burden to show that undisputed facts support each element of the affirmative defense.’ ” (Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 284, 289 .) “The defendant must demonstrate that under no hypothesis is th

2019Code, § 515, subd. (a).)” (Batze, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 471 , fn. omitted.) Utilizing its statutory authority, the IWC promulgated several Wage Orders, codified in the California Code of Regulations, setting forth criteria for determining whether an employee may be classified as an exempt executive.4 (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11010 et seq.) As relevant here, Wage Order No. 7-2001 governs employees of the “mercantile industry.”5 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070 (Wage Order).) To be an exempt executive under this Wage Order, an employee must, inter alia, be “primarily engaged in dut

2017(Labor Code, § 510, subd. (a).) However, the Legislature authorized the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) to establish exemptions for various categories of employees, including “executive . . . employees,” where the employee is “primarily engaged in the duties that meet the test of the exemption,” the employee “customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment in performing those duties,” and the employee “earns a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two times the state 53 minimum wage for full-time employment.”34 (Labor Code, § 515, subd. (a).) In keeping with thi

2017Consequently, wage and hour claims are today governed by two complementary and occasionally overlapping sources of authority: the provisions of the Labor Code, enacted by the Legislature, and a series of 18 wage orders, adopted by the IWC.” ( Brinker, supra, at p. 1026 .) Although the IWC was defunded in 2004, its wage orders remain in effect.

2014(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 1(A); United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1010 .) Employees exempt from overtime pay include those employed in an administrative capacity, which “means any employee: [¶] (a) Whose duties and responsibilities involve either: [¶] (i) The performance of office or non-manual work directly related to management policies or general business operations of his/her employer or their employer’s customers; . . . and [¶] (b) Who customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment; and [¶] (c) Who regularly and