calwages.com

Posts Tagged ‘Amicus curiae’

Second District Holds That Piece Rate Employees Must Be Paid Separate Hourly Minimum Wage

In Averaging, Cal. State Court, Class Actions, Experts, Minimum Wage, Piece Rate, Use of Experts to Show Class Damages on April 2, 2013 at 4:02 pm
mercedes-driver at it’s best

mercedes-driver at it’s best (Photo credit: *MarS)

Today the Second District ordered published Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP, et al., Case No. B235292, __ Cal. App. 4th __ (2d Dist. Mar. 6, 2013).  Gonzalez is a wage and hour class action where the question presented was whether California’s minimum wage law requires an employer that compensates its automotive service technicians on a “piece-rate” basis for repair work must also pay those technicians a separate hourly minimum wage for time spent during their work shifts waiting for vehicles to repair or performing other non-repair tasks directed by the employer.  Defendant automobile dealership contended it was not required to pay the technicians a separate hourly minimum wage for such time because it ensured that a technician’s total compensation for a pay period never fell below what the employer refers to as the “minimum wage floor” — the total number of hours the technician was at work during the pay period (including hours spent waiting for repair work or performing non-repair tasks), multiplied by the applicable minimum wage rate.  The employer supplemented pay, if necessary, to cover any shortfall.

The Court of Appeal concluded that class members were entitled to separate hourly compensation for time spent waiting for repair work or performing other non-repair tasks directed by the employer during their work shifts, as well as penalties under Labor Code section 203, subdivision (a).

The Court also affirmed the award of waiting time penalties in the amount of $237,840.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support an implied finding of willfulness. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

California Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Governor’s Furlough Program

In Other Cases of Interest on October 6, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Arnold Schwarzenegger in July 2003
Image via Wikipedia

On Monday, the California Supreme Court held that the California “Legislature’s 2009 enactment of the revisions to the 2008 Budget Act operated to ratify the use of the two-day-a-month furlough program as a permissible means of achieving the reduction of state employee compensation mandated by the act.”  Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger, No. S183411, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2010 WL 3835132, *2 (Cal. Oct. 4, 2010).  Accordingly, the Court concluded that the “2009 budget legislation validated the Governor’s furlough program here at issue, and rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to that program.  Id.

On December 1, 2008 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a fiscal emergency, called the Legislature into special session, and submitted to the Legislature a comprehensive plan to address the budget problem.  Id. *1.  The Governor’s budget plan included, among many other cost-saving features, two proposed statutory provisions that would impose a mandatory one-day-a-month unpaid furlough of most state employees employed by the executive branch.  Id. The Legislature later passed its own proposed comprehensive budget legislation, but the Legislature’s alternative plan did not include the Governor’s recommended furlough provision.  Id. Read the rest of this entry »

Obama Administration Weighs in on Pharmaceutical Representatives Case, Arguing that Reps Are Not Exempt

In Dept. of Labor, Exemptions on August 12, 2010 at 5:08 pm
The Obama Cabinet.
Image via Wikipedia

Following its stated policy of aggressively prosecuting wage and hour violations, the  Obama administration‘s Department of Labor has filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit case of Buchanan v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 10-1525, arguing that pharmaceutical representatives are not exempt under the outside sales exemption or the administrative exemption of the FLSA.  You can read more here.

The Second Circuit considered the same issue and found that reps were not exempt under either the outside sales exemption nor the administrative exemption.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta