salary basis test in California

2020Code, § 515, subd. (a).) Consistent with that authorization, IWC wage order No. 4-2001 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040; Wage Order 4), which governs “persons employed in professional, technical, clerical, mechanical, and similar occupations,” states an employee is exempt under the administrative exemption if that employee (1) is primarily engaged in exempt duties and (2) earns “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)(g).) The parties stipulated the duties test was satisfied, s

2020A salary is generally understood to be a fixed rate of pay as distinguished from an hourly wage.” (Negri, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 397 [compensation plan based on number of hours worked, with no guaranteed minimum, is not a “salary” under 3 Wage Order 4’s administrative exemption].) California courts follow the federal salary basis test to a substantial degree and look to the federal regulations implementing the Fair Labor Standards Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.) (the FLSA) for guidance in interpreting the salary basis test.

2013(Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th at p. 795 .) Since federal law requires that, in order to meet the salary basis test for exemption the employee would have to be paid a predetermined amount that is not subject to reduction based upon the number of hours worked, state law requirements must be at least as protective.

2005(See generally Sav-on Drugs, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 324 — 325; Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785, 794-795 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 , 978 P.2d 2 ].) In the present case, the parties agree that in order to justify its treatment of the members of the proposed plaintiff classes as exempt, PG&E would be required to demonstrate that those employees meet both a salary basis test and a job duties test. 3 (See generally Barner v. City of Novato (9th Cir. 1994) 17 F.3d 1256, 1259-1260 .) Under the federal regulations implementing the ELSA, 4 “[a]n employee will be considered to be paid o

2026Defendant was/is correct that even if Johnstone’s six unpaid absences were improper, the preclusive effect on any exemption defenses would be limited to “the time period in which the improper deductions were made for employees in the same job classification [(Unit Managers)] working for the same managers responsible for the actual improper deductions.” ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.603 (b); accord, Beauperthuy v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2011) 772 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1133 [“Under Department of Labor regulations, even if an employer incorrectly docks an exempt employee’s salary, it loses the exempti

2026Defendant was/is correct that even if Johnstone’s six unpaid absences were improper, the preclusive effect on any exemption defenses would be limited to “the time period in which the improper deductions were made for employees in the same job classification [(Unit Managers)] working for the same managers responsible for the actual improper deductions.” ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.603 (b); accord, Beauperthuy v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2011) 772 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1133 [“Under Department of Labor regulations, even if an employer incorrectly docks an exempt employee’s salary, it loses the exempti

2026Defendant was/is correct that even if Johnstone’s six unpaid absences were improper, the preclusive effect on any exemption defenses would be limited to “the time period in which the improper deductions were made for employees in the same job classification [(Unit Managers)] working for the same managers responsible for the actual improper deductions.” ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.603 (b); accord, Beauperthuy v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2011) 772 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1133 [“Under Department of Labor regulations, even if an employer incorrectly docks an exempt employee’s salary, it loses the exempti

2026Defendant was/is correct that even if Johnstone’s six unpaid absences were improper, the preclusive effect on any exemption defenses would be limited to “the time period in which the improper deductions were made for employees in the same job classification [(Unit Managers)] working for the same managers responsible for the actual improper deductions.” ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.603 (b); accord, Beauperthuy v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2011) 772 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1133 [“Under Department of Labor regulations, even if an employer incorrectly docks an exempt employee’s salary, it loses the exempti

2026Defendant was/is correct that even if Johnstone’s six unpaid absences were improper, the preclusive effect on any exemption defenses would be limited to “the time period in which the improper deductions were made for employees in the same job classification [(Unit Managers)] working for the same managers responsible for the actual improper deductions.” ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.603 (b); accord, Beauperthuy v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2011) 772 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1133 [“Under Department of Labor regulations, even if an employer incorrectly docks an exempt employee’s salary, it loses the exempti

2026Defendant was/is correct that even if Johnstone’s six unpaid absences were improper, the preclusive effect on any exemption defenses would be limited to “the time period in which the improper deductions were made for employees in the same job classification [(Unit Managers)] working for the same managers responsible for the actual improper deductions.” ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.603 (b); accord, Beauperthuy v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2011) 772 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1133 [“Under Department of Labor regulations, even if an employer incorrectly docks an exempt employee’s salary, it loses the exempti

2020Aug. 2019) § 34.2 at <https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/DLSEManual/dlse_enfcmanual.pdf > [as of Nov. 4, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc//7DGZ-53AL [“If [a non-exempt] employee receives a draw against commissions to be earned at a future date, . . . [a]dvances may only be recovered at termination . . . to the extent that the advances exceed the minimum wage and overtime requirements”]; Stein v. HHGREGG, Inc. (6th Cir. 2017) 873 F.3d 523, 536 [allegation that employer required employees to pay back commission advances at termination was sufficient to support FLSA claim for failure to pay minimum

2020(See Negri, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at pp. 397-398; Kettenring v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 507, 513 (Kettenring).) Those regulations explain that to be exempt from the federal overtime pay requirement, an administrative employee must be engaged in specified administrative job duties and be paid on a “salary or fee basis.” ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.200 (a)(1) (2019).) 3 Defining salary as “a fixed rate of pay” makes sense to us since “salaried employees are paid for the general value of their services rather than the precise amount of time spent on the job.” (Simmons, Wage

2020(See also Schwind v. EW & Associates, Inc. (2005) 357 F.Supp.2d 691, 703 [observing without discussion that administrative “exemption is unavailable to defendants because plaintiff was not paid on a salary basis and received only commissions”].) Since “California follows the federal salary basis test to a substantial degree” (Kettenring, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 513 ), a commissions-only compensation plan cannot pass California’s salary basis test. 4 The issue presented here is not whether paying a base salary of at least twice the minimum wage, plus commissions, satisfies the salary basis

2020(See also Schwind v. EW & Associates, Inc. (2005) 357 F.Supp.2d 691, 703 [observing without discussion that administrative “exemption is unavailable to defendants because plaintiff was not paid on a salary basis and received only commissions”].) Since “California follows the federal salary basis test to a substantial degree” (Kettenring, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 513 ), a commissions-only compensation plan cannot pass California’s salary basis test. 4 The issue presented here is not whether paying a base salary of at least twice the minimum wage, plus commissions, satisfies the salary basis

2007(See Webster v. Public School Employees of Washington (9th Cir. 2001) 247 F.3d 910, 917 [deduction from fringe benefits is not a deduction from salary under the salary basis test].) No evidence of a deduction from salary in violation of the salary basis test was shown in connection with that claim.

2007(See Webster v. Public School Employees of Washington (9th Cir. 2001) 247 F.3d 910, 917 [deduction from fringe benefits is not a deduction from salary under the salary basis test].) No evidence of a deduction from salary in violation of the salary basis test was shown in connection with that claim.