Campbell v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP
642 F.3d 820
9th Cir.2011Background
- PwC employed ≈2,000 unlicensed junior Attest accountants in six California offices who audited client financial statements.
- Disputes centered on whether these unlicensed accountants qualify for California overtime exemptions under the 2001 IWC wage order's professional and administrative exemptions.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs, holding unlicensed accountants could not be exempt and that triable issues remained on administrative exemption.
- PwC appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo, with summary judgment proper where no material factual issues remain.
- The court must determine if unlicensed accountants can satisfy the professional exemption (a or b) and if they can satisfy the five-element administrative exemption test.
- On appeal, the court held the district court erred by ruling unlicensed accountants are categorically ineligible for the professional exemption and by disposing of the administrative exemption issues at summary judgment; the defenses are trial issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can unlicensed accountants fall under the professional exemption? | Unlicensed accountants may meet the 'learned or artistic' criteria in subsection (b). | Accountants must be licensed to qualify under the professional exemption and cannot rely on subsection (b). | Not categorically ineligible; fact-specific inquiry needed. |
| Does the text and structure of the professional exemption permit accountants to be exempt under subsection (b)? | Subsection (b) does not exclude accounting; duties determine exemption eligibility. | Enumerated professions in (a) preclude applicability of (b) for accountants. | Exemption allows accountants (licensed or unlicensed) to meet subsection (b) if duties fit. |
| Is the professional-exemption analysis purely a matter of law or do factual duties govern? | The district court erred by treating it as solely a legal question. | A judgment on exemption can be resolved on the record as a matter of law. | Material fact questions remain regarding duties; jury must decide. |
| Do unlicensed accountants satisfy the five elements of the administrative exemption? | There are fact questions about whether their work is under general supervision and related criteria. | PwC can show general supervision, substantial client impact, and related elements as a matter of law. | Reasonable fact questions exist; trial is necessary. |
| Did the district court correctly grant summary judgment on the administrative-exemption issues? | There are disputes over supervision level and client-impact duties that preclude summary judgment. | The evidence shows no triable issue on supervision and exempt work. | No; reversal and remand for trial on exemptions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yosemite Water Co. v. Yosemite Water Co., 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 844, 978 P.2d 2 (Cal. 1999) (employment exemptions turn on duties; not title alone)
- Hughes v. Bd. of Architectural Examiners, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 624, 952 P.2d 641 (Cal. 1998) (canons of construction; professional exemption text matters)
- People v. Maury, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2003) (factfinder to weigh credibility; exemptions depend on duties)
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35, 231 P.3d 259 (Cal. 2010) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs)
- Singh v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.4th 387, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 351 (Cal. App. 2006) (statutory interpretation of wage orders; duties matter)
- Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (U.S. 2009) (plain-meaning approach; interpret text first)