Court of Appeal - Hourly Pay X Busy Employee = Non-Exempt Compensation

The plaintiff was an insurance adjuster.  He was paid $29 / hour for every hour worked, including overtime.  He always worked more than 40 hours per week.  In a wage-hour lawsuit, he claimed he was not properly classified as exempt because he was not paid on a salary basis.  (He challenged the duties test as well it appears).  The employer argued that he was never paid less than 40 X $29 because he always worked overtime. Therefore, he earned the equivalent of a salary.  The trial court bought that argument.

But the Court of Appeal reversed.

The question presented in this case is whether a compensation scheme based solely upon the number of hours worked, with no guaranteed minimum, can be considered a “salary” within the meaning of the pertinent wage and hour laws. We conclude that such a payment schedule is not a salary and, therefore, does not qualify the employee as exempt.

The employer argued "no harm, no foul," in that the employee always received more than 40 hours x $29 per hour, in that he was always working more than 40 hours.  But, said the court,

The problem here is that defendant stipulated to the fact that it “never paid [plaintiff] a guaranteed salary”; if he worked fewer claims “he made less money than if he worked more claims.” That is the same thing as saying that plaintiff was not paid “a predetermined amount” that “was not subject to reduction based upon the quantity of work performed.” He was not paid a salary. For that reason, defendant did not prove that the administrative exemption of Wage Order 4 applies in this case.

The court did not address whether the employee was properly classified as exempt based on his duties, because the salary issue destroyed his claim.

So, a salary is a predetermined sum, that is not reduced because of the quantity or quality of work performed.  To qualify for exempt status, the fixed salary must be at least 2 X minimum wage (currently $8.00 in California) X 40 hours.  Certain deductions from salary are authorized, as detailed in the federal FLSA regulations, 29 CFR 541.602 (here).

This case is Negri v. Koning & Associates and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Affirms Denial of Class Certification

The court of appeal decided in a retail exemption case that the trial court ruled within its discretion to de-certify or preclude class action status.  The  case involved Sears automotive center managers and a dispute over whether they were correctly classified as exempt. The trial court issued a brief order denying certification, which the plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court's analysis focused on a few issues of interest. First, the trial court has discretion to credit one party's evidence over the other party's conflicting evidence. Second, the appellate court defers to the trial court's discretion by inquiring only whether there is substantial evidence supporting the trial court's ruling.  It does not matter if the other side also offered enough evidence to support a contrary ruling. 

Third, the court emphasized that an employer's uniform policy or classification of a group of employees as exempt is not going to suffice as a "predominating" common issue to warrant class action treatment. Rather, the trial court is supposed to determine whether the actual work performed by the potential class members is susceptible to common questions and answers.

And that brings us to the important part of the opinion. The court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to offer a statistician's opinion that one could "sample" a small group of managers to predict whether all class members were exempt or non-exempt.

To obtain class certification, Dailey was required to demonstrate the predominance of common questions of law or fact. . . . We have found no case, and Dailey has cited none, where a court has deemed a mere proposal for statistical sampling to be an adequate evidentiary substitute or demonstrating the requisite commonality, or suggested that statistical sampling may be used to manufacture predominate common issues where the factual record indicates none exist. If the commonality requirement could be satisfied merely on the basis of a sampling methodology proposal such as the one before us, it is hard to imagine that any proposed class action would not be certified.
***
[C]ourts have held that when the class action proponent fails to satisfy the threshold requirement of commonality, as occurred here, the trial court does not err in rejecting the use of statistical sampling or other methodologies to establish liability as to the whole proposed class. (See, e.g., Mora, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 501, 509-510 [rejecting argument that trial court erred in failing to consider survey methodology proposed by plaintiffs' expert to measure the amount of time employees spent on exempt versus nonexempt tasks, in light of that court's reasonable conclusion that common questions of fact or law did not predominate over individual ones]; Dunbar v. Albertson's Inc. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1432 (Dunbar) [no error in court's conclusion — and in its implicit rejection of the use of surveys and exemplar evidence — that the "findings as to one grocery manager could not reasonably be extrapolated to others given the variation in their work"].)

 The court of appeal also rejected the notion that the absence of a formal policy regarding meals and breaks for exempt employees supports class certification:

Dailey also is not helped by evidence that Sears does not have formal written policies regarding rest breaks and meal periods for salaried managers, does not ensure that breaks are taken, and does not keep records of breaks these employees take. First, such evidence is consistent with Sears's contention that Managers and Assistant Managers are exempt employees. Second, to the extent this evidence relates to whether Managers and Assistant Managers actually take uninterrupted breaks, or to whether Sears enforces meal and rest periods, that evidence is not directly relevant after Brinker. (Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 1034, 1040-1041.) Finally, the absence of a formal written policy explaining salaried managers' rights to meal and rest periods does not necessarily imply the existence of a uniform policy or widespread practice of either depriving these employees of meal and rest periods or requiring them to work during those periods. Sears presented substantial evidence that no one prevents Managers and Assistant Managers from taking meal and rest breaks, and they are free to do so as they deem appropriate. As explained previously, the trial court was entitled to credit this testimony over contrary inferences suggested by Dailey's evidence. (See, e.g., Sav-On, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 331.)

The case is Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Rare Opinion on Inside Sales Exemption

Tyrone Muldrow and a class of recruiters sued their employer, Surrex Solutions Corporation,  for unpaid overtime, meals and breaks.  The trial court held that the employees were exempt undre the "inside sales exemption" and that the company had adequately provided meals and breaks.  The Supreme Court issued a "grant and hold" order pending the decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1037.

On remand after Brinker, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed its earlier decision.  It's blogworthy because of the discussion of the "inside sales exemption" under the wage order .

The exemption is contained in both wage order 4 and wage order 7.  The court did not address which wage order applies, but quoted from wage order 7:

California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order No. 7-2001 exempts from this statutory overtime compensation requirement "any employee whose earnings exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) times the minimum wage if more than half of that employee's compensation represents commissions." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070, subd. (3)(D).)

Under federal law, this is known as the "inside sales" or "7(i)" exemption.

For the above exemption to apply, the employees had to be "selling" a product or service. 

Appellants' primary job duty was to recruit "candidates" for employer "clients." Surrex's clients would place "job orders" with Surrex and appellants would search for potential candidates to fill the job orders. Appellants would use various resources to find candidates, including an internal database that Surrex maintained and various "on-line job boards."

The court decided that these recruiters were "selling" the recruiting services, and that the other activities they engaged in were part of the sales process.

The court then decided that the compensation the recruiters received were "commissions" because they were sufficiently related to the sales price - the revenue the business received for placements:

the sole argument that appellants offer to support their contention that the term "commissions" in the commissioned employees exemption (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 11070, subd. (3)(D)) should be construed as excluding commission systems such as Surrex's, is that such a formula is "too complex." Appellants' contention that the Surrex's commission system is "too complex" is neither factually accurate nor legally relevant. The formula was clearly stated in the employees' employment agreements and, in most cases, could be calculated simply by knowing the candidate's "bill rate" and "pay rate" (both of which the consulting service managers, themselves, negotiated).15 In any event, appellants fail to cite any authority for the proposition that complexity is, or should be, a factor in determining whether a compensation scheme constitutes a commission under relevant California law.

The court also decided that the commission plan was "bona fide" because the commissions regularly exceeded draw.

So, the court decided that the trial court was correct because the inside sales exemption applies.


There are a couple of things the court did not decide that might have affected the outcome. First, the court did not appear to actually decide if Wage Order 4 or 7 is the correct one. The court quoted from Wage Order 7, which applies to all employees working in the "mercantile" industry.   The definition of "mercantile" applies to the sale of goods, not recruiting agencies. From the Wage Order: "'Mercantile Industry' means any industry, business, or establishment operated for the purpose of purchasing, selling, or distributing goods or commodities at wholesale or retail; or for the purpose of renting goods or commodities."

Rather, Wage Order 4 applies to occupations such as office workers, if an industry order does not apply.

The applicable Wage Order actually does not affect the exemption under California law because that exemption is contained in both Wage Order 4 and 7. (The Court should have cited the correct one, though).   The issue, though, is that the federal "7(i)" exemption applies only to "retail" establishments. In fact, the applicable Department of Labor regulations specifically exclude employment agencies from the definition of a retail establishment. See regulation here.  I can't say for certain that Surrex is not a "retail" establishment under federal law, but someone probably should take a look at that issue if he/she hasn't already. 

This is one of the few instances in which California law is less generous than federal law. Although an employee may be exempt under California law, if an employee is not "exempt" under federal law, then federal law will require overtime for work performed over 40 hours in a work week. I may have missed something, but the court's opinion does not seem to address federal law, or the wage order issue. Yet, the court does acknowledge the existence of the 7(i) exemption at footnote 14 of the opinion. Annnyyyway, I may be nuts, or someone has some splaining to do, or both! The message to our dear readers remains:   Please do not apply the inside sales exemption unless you consider both state and federal law.
 The case is Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp. and the opinion is here.