Wage & Hour

Subscribe to Wage & Hour via RSS

Disagreeing with the California Labor Commission, a California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision that explicit mutual wage agreements which include straight time and overtime components are enforceable under California law. The Court affirmed that Labor Code section 515(d) does not outlaw explicit mutual wage agreements of this kind. In Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc., a janitor sued his former employer for overtime wages. The trial court dismissed the claim, finding that an explicit mutual wage agreement existed between the employee and the employer under which the employee’s fixed salary of $880 lawfully compensated him for both his regular and overtime work based on a regular hourly wage of $11.14 and an overtime wage of $16.71. Following his termination, Arechiga claimed that Labor Code section 515 governed his employment agreement. Citing subdivision (d) of the statute, Arechiga asserted that the Court must find that his salary of $880 compensated him only for 40 regular hours per week thus making his regular rate of pay $22 per hour and his overtime rate $33 per hour. He then argued that his employer owed him overtime at $33 per hour for his regularly scheduled 26 hours of overtime worked each week. Arechiga pointed to the express language of section 515(d) to support his argument. Subdivision (d) states: “For the purpose of computing the overtime rate of compensation required to be paid to the non-exempt full-time salaried employee, the employee’s regular hourly rate shall be 1/40th of the employee’s weekly salary.” 
Continue Reading LAW ALERT: California Court Of Appeal Upholds Salary Agreements That Include Straight Time and Overtime Payments

On January 26, 2011, the California Supreme Court granted review in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (October 28, 2010) — Cal.App.4th —, 2010 WL 4244583.  The Court granted review pending its decision in Brinker v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum).   In Hernandez, previously addressed by this blog, the Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court …

On October 30, 2010, the California Court of Appeal published its’ decision in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., B216004 (Published 10/30/10). Restaurants and California employers have been inundated with class action lawsuits involving meal and rest period claims. The case addressed California’s meal and rest period laws on both an individual and class action lawsuit basis. California employers have long been waiting for the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurants v. Superior Court. Until the Brinker decision is issued, our appetite will have to be satisfied with the Chipotle decision. Continue Reading LAW ALERT: Better than their Barbacoa, Chipotle’s Court of Appeal Victory Provides Much Needed Clarification Regarding Employer’s Responsibility For Providing Meal & Rest Periods

Everyone with operations in San Francisco needs to remember that San Francisco has its own minimum wage law.   However unlike the Federal minimum wage or California’s minimum wage, San Francisco’s is indexed to inflation. That means, no new vote, no new discussion of the impact on struggling businesses. Indexing the minimum wage to inflation makes …

The Supreme Court of the United States has now agreed to address two questions raised by the Ninth Circuit’s decision affirming certification of a “gargantuan” nationwide class of more than a million current and former Wal-Mart employees, Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010).

The Court agreed to review two questions regarding Dukes v. Wal-Mart: (1) “Whether claims for monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) – which by its terms is limited to injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief – and, if so, under what Circumstances,” and (2) “Whether the class certification ordered under Rule 23(b)(2) was consistent with Rule 23(a).” Continue Reading LAW ALERT: U.S. Supreme Court to Determine Nationwide Wal-Mart Class Action