208 Cal. App. 4th 1381
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Tyrone Muldrow sued Surrex Solutions Corp. on behalf of current and former employees for overtime and missed meal periods, among other claims.
- Class certified for Surrex “senior consulting services managers” who recruited for Surrex clients since January 31, 2004.
- Trial court ruled employees were exempt under the commissioned employees exemption and that meal periods were provided and not required to be enforced for taking.
- Court declined to reach the administrative exemption issue after finding the above determinations dispositive for the case.
- Supreme Court directed vacatur and reconsideration in light of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court; this court affirmed the exemption ruling and rejected a duty to police meal breaks.
- The decision ultimately affirms the judgment and postjudgment costs in favor of Surrex, and notes class earnings exceeded 1.5x minimum wage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether overtime exemption applies to class members | Muldrow argues exemptions do not apply; they are not primarily sales workers. | Surrex contends class members are exempt under the commissioned employees exemption because compensation is commission-based and tied to sales or profits. | Exemption applies; commissions sufficiently tied to price and bona fide plan existed. |
| Whether the missed meal period claim was properly denied | Brinker requires employers to ensure meal breaks are taken; Surrex failed to police breaks. | Brinker holds only duty to provide a meal period, not to police or ensure breaks are taken. | Claim denied; Brinker governs and employer need not police breaks. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keyes Motors, Inc. v. Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, 197 Cal.App.3d 557 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (defines commission wages and two-prong test for exemption)
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999) (outside salesperson; interpretation of commission wages; remand for factual inquiry)
- Harris v. Investor’s Business Daily, Inc., 138 Cal.App.4th 28 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (telemarketers; compensation not tied to price rejected as commissions)
- Areso v. CarMax, Inc., 195 Cal.App.4th 996 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (distinct compensation schemes; commission based on profits permissible)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (employer duty to provide meal periods; not to police or ensure they are taken)