Heyen v. Safeway Inc.
216 Cal. App. 4th 795
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Heyen, a Safeway assistant manager, sued for unpaid overtime claiming she was nonexempt because she spent most hours on nonexempt tasks.
- Advisory jury awarded Heyen overtime; Safeway appealed alleging error in how hours spent on concurrent exempt/nonexempt tasks were counted.
- Trial court refused Safeway’s concurrent-exempt-task standard and applied a primary-purpose classification of tasks.
- Regulatory framework centered on California Wage Order 7 and IWC standards, with federal 29 C.F.R. provisions incorporated.
- Court concluded Safeway failed to prove Heyen spent more than 50% of time on exempt tasks; judgment for Heyen affirmed.
- Key evidence showed managers performed substantial nonexempt work to meet OR and ‘superior service’ requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can concurrent exempt/nonexempt tasks be counted separately | Heyen performed exempt and nonexempt tasks; concurrent work not hybrid exempt. | Managers multitask; concurrent tasks should be counted exempt if primarily managerial. | California law requires task-by-task classification by primary purpose; concurrent-task approach rejected. |
| Was Heyen properly judged nonexempt under realistic expectations | Employer expectations forced nonexempt tasks to be done by managers to meet OR and service. | Exemption depends on actual duties; expectations alone not dispositive if tasks are exempt. | Evidence showed realistic expectations required substantial nonexempt work; trial court correct to consider them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conley v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 131 Cal.App.4th 260 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (exemption standards; mixed questions of law and fact)
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999) (outside salesperson; realism in exemption analysis)
- Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 87 Cal.App.4th 805 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (liberal construction of exemptions; statutory interpretation)