Wage and Hour

Subscribe to Wage and Hour via RSS

Pirjada v. Superior Court, 201 Cal. App. 4th 1074 (2011)

Putative class representative Obaidul H. Pirjada filed a complaint on behalf of himself and a putative class of all security guards who had been employed in California by Pacific National Security, Inc. during the preceding four years. The complaint alleged a failure to provide meal-and-rest periods and various other wage-and-hour violations as well as…

Harris v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 170 (2011)

Plaintiffs in this case are claims adjusters employed by two insurance companies. They filed four putative class actions, claiming they had been erroneously classified as exempt administrative employees and seeking damages based upon unpaid overtime. The court of appeal held as a matter of law that plaintiffs were non-exempt employees who were entitled to overtime pay.…

Please visit the update to this entry, available here.

On the eve of the implementation of California’s Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011, the California Labor Commissioner has made available to employers a template Notice (Word / pdf) that complies with the requirements of new Labor Code § 2810.5. Beginning January 1, 2012, Section 2810.5 requires employers to furnish specified wage information captured by the Notice to most non-exempt employees. All required information must be provided to employees in the language that the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information.

California Labor Code § 515.5 exempts computer software professionals from the overtime pay requirements imposed by Labor Code § 510, provided they meet certain requirements. To qualify as exempt, these professionals must perform the functions enumerated in the statute and receive a minimum hourly rate of pay. The California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) has announced that effective January 1, 2012, the minimum rate for qualifying computer software professionals will be $38.89 per hour (up from $37.94 per hour in 2011), with commensurate increases in the monthly and annual minimum rates. Certain licensed physicians and surgeons are similarly exempt from state overtime requirements, so long as they are compensated at a minimum pay rate; effective January 1st, this minimum rate increases from $69.13 to $70.86 per hour.

Earlier this year, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 469 (pdf), entitled the “Wage Theft Prevention Act of 2011,” which adds Section 2810.5 to the Labor Code and requires employers to furnish to non-exempt employees, at the time of hiring, a notice specifying (among other things) the employee’s rate or rates of pay and the basis on which the employee’s wages…

Solis v. State of Washington, 656 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011)

The U.S. Secretary of Labor filed a complaint against the State of Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”), alleging a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) based upon the DSHS’s classification of its social workers as “learned professionals” exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements. The district…

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments in the landmark wage-and-hour case Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court on November 8 in San Francisco. In Brinker, the Court will decide whether employers must merely provide meal and rest breaks to their employees or actually ensure that breaks are taken, as well as the related issue of whether such claims are…

Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (2011)

Gareth Pitts filed a class action against his employer, Terrible Herbst, Inc., alleging a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, a class action for violations of Nevada labor laws and a class action for breach of contract. Although Pitts claimed only $88 in damages for…

Plancich v. UPS, Inc., 198 Cal. App. 4th 308 (2011)

Larry Plancich sued UPS for failure to pay overtime, meal and rest breaks; failure to keep, maintain and furnish accurate wage statements, and unfair competition, among other claims. The trial court ruled in favor of UPS on the unfair competition claim and a jury found in favor of UPS on the remaining claims. The…

Zelasko-Barrett v. Brayton-Purcell, LLP, 198 Cal. App. 4th 582 (2011)

Following his graduation from law school but before he had passed the California bar examination, Matthew Zelasko-Barrett worked for the law firm of Brayton-Purcell, LLP as a Law Clerk II. After his voluntary departure from the firm, Zelasko-Barrett filed this lawsuit claiming he was misclassified as an exempt employee while he worked for the…