outside salesperson

Subscribe to outside salesperson via RSS

We invite you to review our newly-posted January 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

…

Espinoza v. Warehouse Demo Servs., Inc., 86 Cal. App. 5th 1184 (2022)

Georgina Espinoza, an employee of Warehouse Demo Services (“Warehouse”), worked in a Costco and performed demonstrations of products. Warehouse did not lease the space, but instead collects floor space on behalf of the companies whose products are demonstrated and then remits payment on their behalf to Costco. Espinoza brought a class action…

Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. A125557, 2012 WL 366590 (Feb. 6, 2012)

In a decision destined to have significant statewide ramifications, the California Court of Appeal for the First District reversed a trial court’s certification of a wage-hour class and determination of liability, concluding that the trial court had failed to follow “established statistical procedures” in adopting the trial management plan under which class-wide liability was determined by the testimony of only a relative handful of the class members.

Four current and former U.S. Bank Business Banking Officers (BBO) filed suit on behalf of themselves and all current and former BBOs within the relevant period, alleging that they had been misclassified as exempt outside sales people and therefore illegally deprived of overtime pay. After certifying the class, the trial court, over U.S. Bank’s strenuous objections, adopted a trial management plan in which a random sample of 20 (out of 260) class members would testify as representatives of the class, and the court would use this testimony to determine class-wide liability. After bench trials, the court awarded the class members $15 million in unpaid overtime and prejudgment interest, as well as $18 million in attorney’s fees.

Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 203 Cal. App. 4th 212 (2012)

U.S. Bank (“USB”) appealed a $15 million judgment that was entered against it following a bifurcated bench trial. The plaintiffs are 260 current and former business banking officers who claimed they were misclassified by USB as outside sales personnel exempt from overtime pay. The Court of Appeal agreed with USB that the…

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 635 F.3d 383 (2011)

Michael Christopher and Frank Buchanan were employed as pharmaceutical sales representatives (“PSRs”) of SmithKline d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline (“Glaxo”) and were classified as outside salesmen exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. PSRs work outside of a Glaxo office and spend much of their time traveling to the offices of and working with physicians within their assigned…

D’Este v. Bayer Corp., 565 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2009)

The Ninth Circuit has certified two questions of law to be answered by the California Supreme Court pursuant to Cal. Rule of Court 8.548: (1) Does a pharmaceutical sales representative (“PSR”) qualify as an “outside salesperson” under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders 1-2001 and 4-2001 if the PSR spends more than half the working…

D’Este v. Bayer Corp., 565 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2009)

The Ninth Circuit has certified two questions of law to be answered by the California Supreme Court pursuant to Cal. Rule of Court 8.548: (1) Does a pharmaceutical sales representative (“PSR”) qualify as an “outside salesperson” under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders 1-2001 and 4-2001 if the PSR spends more than half the working…