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

News

Farella Lawyers Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 Edition

Read More
Publication

Spotlight on Coalition of Immokalee Workers

The American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law has awarded the 2022 Frances Perkins Public Service Award to the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) for its vital decades-long fight for the dignities...

Read More
Publication

Compelling Employees to Arbitration Suddenly Has Less of an Upside

On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Techs Inc., as to whether employees still have standing to sue for "non-individual" PAGA claims when they have been...

Read More
Publication

Employers Should Review Confidentiality Policies and Severance Agreements in Light of Recent SEC $10 Million Penalty

Both public and private companies should review their confidentiality policies and written agreements in light of recent guidance and enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). On September 29, 2023, the SEC...

Read More
Publication

A Summary of New Laws Coming for California Employers in 2024

In 2023, California has adopted several new employment laws either introducing new employee protections or codifying existing practices into state law. With these changes, employers will need to examine and adjust some of their...

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
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
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Named to 2023 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thirty-eight Farella Braun + Martel lawyers were named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists of top attorneys in Northern California for 2023. 2023 Farella Northern California Super Lawyers: Carly Alameda – Business...

Read More
Publication

Five New California Laws Employers Need to Know

California has become a trendsetter when it comes to implementing new laws. The state is often at the forefront of key issues and paves the way for other states to follow in its footsteps. This...

Read More