• Recent Article Reveals Long Delays at State Labor Commissioner’s Office

    A recent article from the Los Angeles Daily Journal (Vol. 125 No. 057, March 23, 2012) reports “Wage claims get uneven treatment, records show.”  According to the article, data obtained through a Public Records Act request and interviews with lawyers representing business and workers reveals significant delays.

    State law requires the Labor Commissioner to conduct its hearings within 120 days after filing.  The Daily Journal’s analysis shows that 11 of the 16 regional offices did not meet that obligation in 2011.  Different offices report different average waiting periods, with Oakland showing the worst results: over 400 days to get to a hearing.  Santa Rosa, on the other hand, gets its cases to hearing within 85 days.  San Francisco heard its cases within 301 days on average.  San Jose averaged approximately 275 days to get to a hearing.

    The study did not discuss how long it takes for a decision to get mailed after the hearing.  By law, the decision is supposed to be written within 15 days after the hearing.  In my experience, however, it often takes several months to receive the actual decision.  This sometimes means a case can take between one to two years to resolve if filed with the Labor Commissioner.  Cases take even longer if they are then appealed to superior court for a trial de novo.

    Budget cutbacks and state-mandated furloughs as well as an increase in claims filed are main causes of the long delays.  In some cases, the state assigns hearing officers from other jurisdictions to help carry some of the load, and I’ve seen an improvement in the speed with which cases proceed in the last few months, but there are still significant delays.  In many instances, a case can move more quickly through court than through the Labor Commissioner.

    The Daily Journal article also discusses perceived inconsistent rulings reported by several practitioners.

    When deciding whether to proceed with a Labor Commissioner claim, claimants should consider the length of time it will take to receive a decision.  Employers should realize that they may need to maintain records for a longer period than required by law so they can ensure they have appropriate evidence and witnesses by the time a hearing comes around.

    If you are contemplating filing a claim with the Labor Commissioner, or if you’ve recently been notified that a claim has been filed, I highly recommend speaking with competent counsel familiar with the Labor Commissioner and wage and hour issues.

    The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego
    95 South Market Street, Suite 520
    San Jose, CA 95113
    Tel. 408-293-6341
     
    Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman, former associate of The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego.
     
    Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.
     
    Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.Phillip J. Griego represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

    , San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

  • For Whom No Bell Tolls

    OK, maybe this case is only interesting to those of us Wage and Hour nerds, but Harris v. Superior Court could be hailed as the final nail in the Bell case trilogy.  Although this post may include more information about how sausage is made than you ever wanted to know, the Court’s decision could curtail a fairly significant number of overtime lawsuits.

    The Bell cases are  three  decisions that the Supreme Court issued regarding whether claims adjusters working for Farmers Insurance Exchange were exempt from California’s overtime requirements.  The cases were important because the court used the production/administration dichotomy to find the adjusters did not meet the administrative exemption test.

    The production/administration dichotomy distinguishes between administrative employees primarily engaged in “administering the business affairs of the enterprise” and production employees primarily engaged in “producing the commodity or commodities, whether goods or services,” that were the focus of the enterprise.  Despite the fact that Bell specifically held that the production/administration dichotomy is not useful in every case, a lot of attorneys try to rely on the distinction as a simple way of determining whether an employee is exempt.

    In Harris, claims adjusters employed by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation filed a class action seeking unpaid overtime.  The employer alleged the employees were exempt under the administrative exemption, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that “as a matter of law,” the claims adjusters could not be exempt.  The appellate court used the production/administration dichotomy and held the employees could not be exempt from California’s overtime laws.  The California Supreme Court disagreed and put a huge damper on further attempts to use the production/administration dichotomy as the sole basis for defeating a claimed exemption.

    Harris pointed out that Bell was decided based on pre-2000 regulations which did not clearly define the administrative exemption.  In 2000, the IWC amended the wage orders providing more details as to what activities qualify as exempt duties and specifically incorporated specific federal regulations.  Bell did not have the advantage of those regulations and therefore relied on the production/administration dichotomy absence clear direction from the legislature or the IWC.  Now that we have specific regulatory guidance, the production/administration dichotomy is even less useful.

    Perhaps the biggest death toll for Bell is the Supreme Court’s focus on the fact that Bell is really only applicable to pre-2000 cases.  While there may be a few pre-2000 cases still winding their way through the court system, I suspect there aren’t many of them left.

    It is also important to note that the Supreme Court did not say the claims adjusters were or were not exempt from overtime.  The court merely pointed out that the appellate court used the wrong test in determining whether the employees are entitled to overtime.  Correctly classifying employees is not easy, and you should seek the assistance of competent professionals before making a costly mistake.

    The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego
    95 South Market Street, Suite 520
    San Jose, CA 95113
    Tel. 408-293-6341
     
    Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman, former associate of The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego.
     
    Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.
     
    Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.Phillip J. Griego represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

  • A Word to the Wise About Lawyers

    Not all lawyers are alike and some, unfortunately, take shortcuts that can have serious consequences.  I provide you with the following excerpt from a recent decision by California’s Fourth Appellate District.  While the facts of the case are interesting in and of themselves, the opening paragraphs are very telling regarding unacceptable work by attorneys.

    We reluctantly return in this case to the question of default judgments with a cautionary tale – well, three actually. The first is a tale for plaintiff‘s attorneys, who may assume a defendant‘s default is an unalloyed gift: an opportunity to obtain a big judgment with no significant effort. It is not. Instead, when a defendant fails to timely respond to the complaint, the first thing plaintiff‘s counsel should do (after offering an extension of time to respond) is review the complaint with care, to ascertain whether it supports the specific judgment the client seeks. If not, a motion to amend is in order. In this case, counsel for plaintiff Gil Kim failed to do that. Instead, he simply asked the court to enter defendants‘ defaults on the complaint as initially alleged. Unfortunately for Kim, the factual allegations of that complaint do not support any judgment in his favor.

    And even when the allegations of a complaint do support the judgment plaintiff seeks, he is not automatically entitled to entry of that judgment by the court, simply because defendant defaulted. Instead, it is incumbent upon plaintiff to prove-up his damages, with actual evidence. It is wholly insufficient to simply declare, as Kim did here, that defendants‘ breach of one or more promissory notes ―caused [him] tremendous financial loss, and that a judgment of ―$5 million against each defendant, for a total of $30 million . . . would be a reasonable sum. That evidence may establish the amount Kim feels entitled to recover, but it fails utterly to demonstrate what he is legally entitled to recover. Kim‘s failure to offer any significant evidence to support his damage claims precludes any monetary judgment in his favor.

    We consequently reverse the default judgment entered in Kim‘s favor, and remand the case to the trial court with directions to enter judgment in defendants‘ favor.

    The second cautionary tale is for trial courts. And it‘s not the first time we have told this tale. As we previously explained in Heidary v. Yadollahi (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 857, 868, ―[i]t is imperative in a default case that the trial court take the time to analyze the complaint at issue and ensure that the judgment sought is not in excess of or inconsistent with it. It is not in plaintiffs‘ interest to be conservative in their demands, and without any opposing party to point out the excesses, it is the duty of the court to act as gatekeeper, ensuring that only the appropriate claims get through. That role requires the court to analyze the complaint for itself — with guidance from counsel if necessary — ascertaining what relief is sought as against each defaulting party, and to what extent the relief sought in one cause of action is inconsistent with or duplicative of the relief sought in another. The court must then compare the properly pled damages for each defaulting party with the evidence offered in the prove-up. Unfortunately, the trial court in this case seems not to have done that, and instead simply gave Kim what he asked for – which in this case was $30 million. Even more unfortunately, this trial court is certainly not alone in doing so, even since Heidary was published. (See, e.g., Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th1161 [$8 million in compensatory damages awarded on a complaint alleging $50,000 in damages].) We need to shore this up. The court‘s role in the process of entering a default judgment is a serious, substantive, and often complicated one, and it must be treated as such.

    And third, this case is a cautionary tale for appellate counsel. Those who practice before this court are expected to comport themselves honestly, ethically, professionally and with courtesy toward opposing counsel. The fact a respondent has no obligation to file a brief at all, in no way excuses his counsel‘s misconduct if he chooses to do so. The conduct of Timothy J. Donahue, Kim‘s counsel herein, which included seeking an extension of time to file his brief under false pretenses, and then filing a brief which was not just boilerplate, but a virtual copy of a brief for another case – including a boilerplate accusation of misconduct against appellants‘ counsel and a boilerplate request for sanctions based on a purportedly ―frivolous appeal – will not be countenanced. Donahue‘s response to this court‘s notice, informing him that we were contemplating the imposition of sanctions on our own motion, was both truculent and dismissive, going so far as to assert that we must have issued the notice in error. We did not. Nor did we appreciate him responding to our order that he appear to address possible sanctions against him by sending in his stead an attorney who had not been informed sanctions were being considered, and knew nothing about our order. Donahue‘s conduct on appeal was inappropriate in nearly every respect, and we hereby sanction him in the amount of $10,000.

    When I became an attorney a good friend of mine expressed concern because his experiences with his attorney were less than positive.  From my friend’s perspective he paid a significant amount of money and the attorney merely used boilerplate forms and “plugged in the names.”  I cannot comment on that attorneys’ practices, but my friend’s perspective played a significant role in how I approach cases.

    Deciding how to proceed in a case begins with the initial meeting with the client.  I draw on my past experience and knowledge to educate my clients regarding different approaches and likely outcomes.  I then work with my client to execute a plan of action intended to meet my client’s goals.  While I certainly use past experience and work product to further my client’s interests, it is not enough to simply change the names and submit a document to the courts without ensuring the documents are accurate, appropriate to the situation and drafted to meet the intended outcome.  Unfortunately not all lawyers are alike.

    I heard a joke recently that 99% percent of the attorneys out there ruin the public image of the remaining 1% of us hard-working folk.  I’ve been lucky enough to surround myself with colleagues and co-workers that I respect and who consistently hold themselves to a higher standard.  I never want to have an opinion written about my work product that even implies I gave less than 100% of my attention.  Taking the time to do things correctly may not be the cheapest way to approach a situation, but it’s the only way I feel comfortable doing business.

    The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego
    95 South Market Street, Suite 520
    San Jose, CA 95113
    Tel. 408-293-6341
     
    Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman, former associate of The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego.
     
    Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.
     
    Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.Phillip J. Griego represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

  • DFEH Announces Biggest Administrative Award Ever

    On September 12, 2011, the DFEH issued the following press release:

    State Department of Fair Employment and Housing Achieves Historic Victory
    Electrical Supply Company Ordered to Pay $846,300 for Firing Cancer Survivor

    ELK GROVE, CA – The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) today announced its largest-ever administrative award of $846,300 against electrical supplier Acme Electric Corporation for firing an employee because he had cancer.  Headquartered in Lumberton, North Carolina, Acme Electric is a division of Actuant Corporation, a Wisconsin diversified industrial corporation that operates in more than 30 countries.

    “This historic administrative victory underscores the Department’s commitment to vindicating the rights of Californians victimized by workplace discrimination,” said DFEH Director Phyllis Cheng.

    Charles Richard Wideman worked for Acme Electric as western regional sales manager overseeing sales operations in the company’s largest territory from February 2004 to March 2008.   He developed kidney cancer in 2006 and prostate cancer in 2007.  Mr.  Wideman’s cancers required two surgeries and numerous cancer-related outpatient appointments.  The company immediately granted his two requests for time off for surgery and recuperative leave.  However, Mr. Wideman requested further accommodation for the travel limitation his cancers caused from June 2006 through April 2007.  Acme Electric refused to grant or even acknowledge these accommodation requests.  Instead, in December 2007, Mr. Wideman’s supervisor gave him an unfavorable performance evaluation, criticizing him for insufficient travel.  On February 28, 2008, ignoring Mr.  Wideman’s need for accommodation the preceding year and failing to take into account his dramatically improved job performance, Acme Electric fired Mr. Wideman, relying on the insufficient travel pretext.

    “California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides that persons with disabilities, such as cancer, must be reasonably accommodated, so that they can continue to work productively,” added Director Cheng.

    After a three-day hearing, the State’s Fair Employment and Housing Commission found Acme Electric violated the FEHA by failing to accommodate Mr. Wideman’s known travel limitation due to his cancers, failing to engage in a good faith interactive process, discriminating against Mr. Wideman because of his disability, and failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination from occurring.  To compensate Mr. Wideman for his losses, the Commission awarded him $748,571 for lost wages, $22,729 for out-of-pocket expenses and $50,000 for the emotional distress he suffered.  In addition, the Commission ordered Acme to pay $25,000 to the State’s General Fund as an administrative fine.  Acme must further comply with posting, policy changes, and training requirements ordered by the Commission.

    Medical leaves are among the most complicated issues for employers and employees.  Several laws can impact the leave, the employer’s obligations and the employee’s rights.  Knowing how those laws interact will help you make informed decisions about leaves of absences, and hopefully avoid costly litigation.

    If you, or someone you know, has a question about a medical leave of absence, contact an attorney familiar with leave of absence laws.

    The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego
    95 South Market Street, Suite 520
    San Jose, CA 95113
    Tel. 408-293-6341
     
    Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman, former associate of The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego.
     
    Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.
     
    Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.Phillip J. Griego represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

    idual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

  • Can I Get My Fees, Please?

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says the answer may be up to the trial judge.  In  a Fair Housing Act suit, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court properly relied on its own knowledge of customary rates charged by attorneys and its own experience concerning reasonable and proper fees in making an award of attorney fees.

    After the plaintiff won a similar state case, the parties settled their federal dispute.  The plaintiff asked the court to grant its motion for attorneys’ fees.  The court awarded fees, but substantially less than the amount sought.  The trial judge believed the plaintiff should have settled the case earlier and wasted time and money with unnecessary arguments.  The plaintiff appealed.

    The Ninth Circuit concluded that under Lohman v. Duryea Borough, 574 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2009), the district court properly considered settlement discussions for the purpose of deciding a litigant’s “success,” and therefore what would constitute a reasonable award.  The Ninth Circuit believed the trial court was in the best position to discern what work was unnecessary and could not find any abuse of discretion in deducting the hours spent on unnecessary motions and arguments.

    Many lawyers and clients want to make every conceivable argument to increase the chance of prevailing.  This is often a wise decision, but lawyers need to be mindful that if a court determines a particular argument or motion was unnecessary or a waste of time, the client may end up footing the bill without hope of recouping those costs from the other side.  I’m a firm believer in ensuring my clients are an integral part of putting together the strategy for the case.  Ingram v. Oroudjian is a good reminder that attorneys and clients need to pick their battles carefully, or at least be mindful of the resources that are being spent.

    The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego
    95 South Market Street, Suite 520
    San Jose, CA 95113
    Tel. 408-293-6341
     
    Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman, former associate of The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego.
     
    Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.
     
    Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.Phillip J. Griego represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

  • Do you know whether you have to pay your employees overtime wages?

    Powerhouse auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers recently found out the hard way when the 9th Circuit held that unlicensed junior accountants —  the young accountants who perform the auditing work—may be classified as non-exempt employees. See Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 2342740 (9th Cir., June 15, 2011) [www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/06/15/09-16370.pdf].

    What does it mean to be exempt?

    Whether an employee is exempt or non-exempt affects the employer’s obligation to pay overtime. In California, if a non-exempt employee works over 8 hours per day, or over 40 hours in week, then the employer must usually pay time and a half—that is, 1.5x regular wage rate multiplied by the number of overtime hours. Depending on the employee’s hourly wage, frequency of overtime work, and the employer’s number of employees, overtime wages can add up to large amounts.

    But if an employee is correctly classified as exempt, then the employer does not have to pay overtime, no matter how many hours the employee works.

    Obviously, employers have an interest in classifying employees as exempt where possible. However, employers cannot willy-nilly declare all employees exempt, and misclassifying employees can lead to significant penalties for the employer.

    California law generally exempts employees who have executive functions (such as the CEO), administrative functions, and professional functions from overtime pay. The California Labor Commissioner has a list of exempt employees.

    What does this mean for you?

    PwC argued the junior accountants should be exempt from overtime pay under the administrative exemption or under the professional exemption. The 9th Circuit disagreed and held that the junior accountants are not “categorically ineligible” from being non-exempt. Slip op. at 1. That’s a lot of double negatives. Basically, the court reiterated that classifying an employee as exempt depended on the specific facts of the case and that it was possible for a court to find that junior accounts were non-exempt.

    For employers, Campbell raises the specter of the risk of misclassifying employees. If the district court finds that the junior accountants are non-exempt, then PwC may be liable to thousands of junior accountants for unpaid wages going back up to four years before the lawsuit was filed. That’s a lot of money at stake.

    So, bottom line, if you do not know whether your employees are exempt, check with an attorney to analyze the facts and make sure you’re not incurring possible liability.  If you think you are improperly classified, talk with an attorney familiar with California’s overtime laws.

    The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego
    95 South Market Street, Suite 520
    San Jose, CA 95113
    Tel. 408-293-6341

    Original article by Kate Bowerman, Summer Intern at The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego.

    Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.
     
    Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.Phillip J. Griego represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

  • 3 Interesting Overtime Results

    $4,385,000 settlement in class action case against DIRECTV, Inc:

    Michael Cicero, on behalf of himself and other installers, filed a class action lawsuit against DIRECTV alleging he and other installers were not paid overtime and were not paid for time spent driving to and from installation sites.  Cicero alleged installers were paid based on the number of installations performed and did not receive meal breaks.  The parties settled prior to trial and DIRECTV agreed to establish a $4,385,000 settlement fund for the class.

    $2,910,000 settlement in class action against Kaiser Foundation:

    Yvette Smith, Tim Dodson, and Molla Enger, on behalf of themselves and other business application coordinators and senior business application coordinators, sued Kaiser Foundation Hospitals alleging the employees were misclassified as exempt employees.  Kaiser contended the employees were exempt under the California and Federal administrative exemptions.  The plaintiffs asked for $6.46 million, but settled for $2.91 million prior to trial.

    County of Los Angeles defeats paramedic overtime claim:

    Richard Dupless and Tom Fahrny, on behalf of themselves and 82 similarly situated department employees, sued the County of Los Angeles alleging a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The plaintiffs argued that the county incorrectly calculated their regular pay rate because the county did not consider hazard bonuses paid to the employees.  The plaintiffs also alleged that they were not paid overtime when doing hazardous materials handling.  The county argued that it correctly calculated the regular rate of pay because the plaintiffs were not entitled to the bonuses unless they worked shifts in paramedic or hazardous materials position, therefore the bonuses were not part of the regular pay for the non-paramedic and non-hazardous materials positions.  The county also argued that the paramedics were not entitled to overtime unless they worked more than 182 hours in a week.  The judge granted the county’s motion for summary judgment.  No word yet on whether there will be an appeal.

    The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego
    95 South Market Street, Suite 520
    San Jose, CA 95113
    Tel. 408-293-6341
     
    Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman, former associate of The Law Office of Phillip J. Griego.
     

    Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

    Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and the Law Office of Phillip J. Griego cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

    Phillip J. Griego represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.