Negri v. Koning & Associates
216 Cal. App. 4th 392
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Negri, an insurance claims adjuster, was employed May 2004–Oct 2005 by Koning & Associates and paid $29/hour with no guaranteed salary.
- Negri claimed overtime under California wage laws; defendant defended exemption under Wage Order 4 administrative exemption.
- Stipulated facts showed Negri scheduled himself, worked with little supervision, and spent time recording/transmitting data.
- Negri was paid based on billed hours per client; no guaranteed salary; overtime was not paid.
- Trial court referenced Harris v. Superior Court (2011) while applying federal law; court found exemption based on duties and compensation.
- Court held that Wage Order 4 requires salary basis; Negri’s hourly pay with no guaranteed minimum does not meet the salary basis test; exemption not proven; judgment reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hourly pay with no guaranteed minimum qualifies as salary | Negri: no guaranteed salary; hourly scheme fails salary basis | Koning: salary basis can be inferred under Kettenring | Not a salary; exemption not established |
| Whether federal salary-basis test governs state exemption analysis | DLSE interpretation supports salary-basis | Federal cases show duties-only focus; compensation must be predetermined | State law requires at least as protective salary basis as federal; not satisfied here |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 170 (Cal. 2011) (duty prong of exemption; apply statutes and wage orders to facts)
- In re Farmers Ins. Exchange, Claims Represent., 481 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2007) (adjusters exempt where duties and pay meet requirements)
- Cheatham v. Allstate Ins. Co., 465 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 2006) (exemption depends on duties and salary basis)
- Roe-Midgett v. CC Services, Inc., 512 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2008) (salary basis under federal rules)
- Kettenring v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 167 Cal.App.4th 507 (Cal. App. 2008) (salary basis where fixed amount not subject to reduction by hours)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (interprets wage orders; supports DLSE interpretation)
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999) (exemption protections; salary basis required)
- Baden-Winterwood v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., 566 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 2009) (deduction rules; salary basis not met by hourly pay)
- Ghirardo v. Antonioli, 8 Cal.4th 791 (Cal. 1994) (analysis framework for exemptions; independent review)