Insights
Publications

California Supreme Court Splits From Federal Law on Commissioned Employee Exemption Compliance

7/16/2014 Articles

On July 14, 2014, the California Supreme Court clarified the commissioned employee exemption from overtime under California law. In Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., the court confirmed that calculations necessary to qualify for exemption are to be made for each bi-weekly pay period. Employees must be paid premium wages for any overtime worked in pay periods not qualifying for the exemption.

Susan Peabody had worked for Time Warner Cable, Inc. (Time Warner), as a commissioned salesperson receiving paychecks bi-weekly. Every other week, Time Warner paid Peabody what equated to $9.61 per hour, assuming a 40-hour workweek. About every other pay period, Time Warner also paid her commission wages under its account executive compensation plan. Time Warner treated Peabody as exempt from overtime as a commissioned employee, which requires that employees (1) earn at least 1.5 times minimum wage, and (2) earn half of their compensation in commissions.

After termination, Peabody filed a putative class action in federal court alleging that she had worked overtime and did not earn 1.5 times minimum wage in all pay periods. Time Warner responded that Peabody’s periodic commission payments brought her monthly earnings above that threshold. The United States District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Time Warner, granting summary judgment against Peabody, but the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to review the case.

The California Supreme Court reversed the federal court decisions, finding that the commissioned employee exemption depends upon payments made each pay period. It rejected Time Warner’s argument that the 1.5 minimum wage calculation should be made based upon the month in which the compensation was earned. Rather, it held that employers must base the calculation upon each pay period in which compensation was paid. The court also observed that commissioned employees must be paid bi-monthly.

Thus, to meet the commissioned employee exemption, the Peabody court found that each bi-monthly pay period must include compensation equal to no less than 1.5 times minimum wage. Work performed in any pay period not qualifying for the exemption must include appropriate premiums for overtime hours. (The court expressly reserved judgment as to whether the requirement that at least half of earnings be commissions must be satisfied bi-weekly as well.) The court acknowledged that California deviates from federal law, which allows commissioned employees to be paid monthly and qualify for the exemption based upon monthly compensation.

The Peabody decision is critically important to employers with commissioned salespeople. It requires that employers ensure that such employees are assured of receiving 1.5 times minimum wage in every bi-monthly paycheck. The decision also raises the possibility that at least 50% of each bi-monthly paycheck come from commissions. Employers should consider restructuring their commission programs to ensure that commissions and base pay are adequately spread between bi-monthly paychecks to ensure compliance with the Peabody decision.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Navigating California's New Rebuttable Presumption Law

The ever-evolving landscape of employment laws in California has introduced a notable change with the implementation of a new law that establishes a rebuttable presumption of retaliation in some circumstances. This law, which took...

Read More
Publication

Important Changes and the Impact of California Industry-Specific Minimum Wage Laws

In the ever-evolving landscape of California labor laws, the minimum wage has once again taken center stage. With the recent state-wide increase to $16 per hour, the Golden State continues to lead the nation...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Welcomes Benjamin Buchwalter to Growing Employment Group

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More
Publication

Navigating California's Workplace Violence Prevention Law

California has introduced a new requirement compelling most employers to implement a workplace violence prevention policy by July 1, 2024. The implications of this law are significant, prompting the need for human resource executives...

Read More
Publication

Employment Law Symposium Recordings & Articles

Employers Face Significant New Requirements for Severance Agreements and Non-Competes  (Recording) Conducting Effective, Defensible Investigations (With Lessons Learned from Summary Judgment & Trial)  (Recording) California Employment Law Updates: What to Look Out for in...

Read More
Publication

Navigating California's Evolving Legal Landscape Governing Leaves of Absence

California’s employment laws are no stranger to change, and recent years have witnessed the introduction or modification of various protected leaves by employees. In this article, we will delve into three significant leave categories...

Read More
Publication

Navigating Cannabis in the Workplace: A Guide for California Corporations

The landscape surrounding cannabis in the workplace is rapidly evolving, posing challenges for California corporations and businesses to establish effective policies and procedures. As the use of cannabis, both medical and recreational, becomes more...

Read More
Publication

Employment Law Update for Nonprofits With Holly Sutton

Welcome to  EO Radio Show - Your Nonprofit Legal Resource . Charities, foundations, and their founders often request help addressing employment practices and compliance questions. In this episode, host Cynthia Rowland is joined by Holly...

Read More
News

Ripple Effects of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Decision on Affirmative Action

Kelly Matayoshi was quoted in the article "Ripple Effects of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Decision on Affirmative Action" in the Bar Association of San Francisco's fall issue of  San Francisco Attorney Magazine . Read...

Read More