226 Cal. App. 4th 391
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Jong, an Outpatient Pharmacy Manager (OPM) at Kaiser, sued Kaiser for unpaid overtime allegedly worked off the clock.
- OPMs were reclassified from exempt salaried to non-exempt hourly employees after Lopez v. Kaiser; Kaiser then prohibited overtime payments not pre-approved and required reporting overtime.
- Jong claimed Kaiser knew or should have known he worked off the clock after reclassification, despite policies and attestations.
- Kaiser moved for summary judgment arguing Jong had no evidence Kaiser knew or could have knowledge of his off-the-clock work.
- Trial court granted summary judgment as to Jong, excluding much of his evidence as inadmissible or insufficient to show Kaiser’s knowledge.
- Court analysis focused on whether Kaiser had actual or constructive knowledge of Jong’s unreported hours and on the admissibility/weight of evidence from the Lopez deposition excerpts and other data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kaiser had actual or constructive knowledge of Jong’s off-the-clock work | Jong contends Kaiser knew or should have known of unreported hours | Kaiser asserts lack of knowledge and no triable issue | No triable issue; judgment affirmed |
| admissibility and legal weight of Lopez deposition excerpts to show notice | Excerpts show Kaiser’s notice that OPMs worked long hours | Excerpts are inadmissible for truth or irrelevant to Jong’s specific site | Exclusion appropriate; not sufficient to show Kaiser knowledge about Jong |
| Whether alarm/operational data or January 2010 email evidence supports knowledge | Data suggests off-the-clock work and policy warnings | Data falls short of showing Jong’s specific awareness by Kaiser | Evidence insufficient to create triable issue on knowledge |
| Applicable standard for employer knowledge under Labor Code 1194/FLSA framework | FLSA knowledge principles apply to show employer knew or should have known | Jong failed to meet knowledge standard after reclassification | No genuine issue of material fact; Kaiser entitled to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Forrester v. Roth’s I.G.A. Foodliner, Inc., 646 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1981) (employer must have knowledge or opportunity to know overtime; not liable if employee prevents discovery)
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (2000) (knowledge/disclose of off-the-clock work and suffer/permit standards)
- White v. Starbucks Corp., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (no genuine issue of knowledge that worker worked off the clock)
- Newton v. City of Henderson, 47 F.3d 746 (5th Cir. 1995) (explicit overtime prohibition undermines knowledge of unreported overtime)
- Reich v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Resources, 28 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 1994) (knowledge of unreported overtime matters for FLSA)
- See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal.App.4th 889 (2012) (context for evidentiary use in summary judgment on wage claims)
- Kellar v. Summit Seating, Inc., 664 F.3d 169 (7th Cir. 2011) (constructive knowledge considerations in wage/hour disputes)