Sullivan v. Oracle Corp.
662 F.3d 1265
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Oracle is a Delaware corporation with California operations that classified instructors as exempt teachers not owed overtime under California law or the FLSA.
- Instructors trained Oracle customers; work occurred inside and outside California; some days were spent in California.
- Oracle began paying overtime to California-based instructors in 2003 and to all U.S. instructors in 2004; retroactive overtime payments were not issued.
- Three nonresident plaintiffs (Instructors) sued in state court, asserting Labor Code overtime claims, California Business & Professions Code §17200 claims, and a §17200 claim based on FLSA violations.
- The district court granted summary judgment against plaintiffs on all claims; the Ninth Circuit reversed as to the first two claims and affirmed as to the §17200/FLSA claim, then certified questions to the California Supreme Court.
- California Supreme Court answered that California overtime law applies to out-of-state plaintiffs working in California, §17200 applies to the California overtime work, and §17200 does not apply to FLSA violations outside California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does California Labor Code apply to overtime for out-of-state plaintiffs working in California? | Sullivan argues LC should apply to California work. | Oracle contends LC does not apply due to due process/Dormant Commerce Clause. | Yes; LC applies to California work by out-of-state plaintiffs. |
| Does §17200/Labor Code claim apply to overtime under the Labor Code? | Sullivan asserts §17200 covers LC overtime violations. | Oracle argues §17200 does not add beyond LC; precludes relief. | Yes; §17200 applies to the Labor Code overtime violations. |
| Does §17200/FLSA claim apply to overtime outside California for FLSA violations? | Evich and Burkow contend §17200 covers out-of-state FLSA violations. | Oracle argues §17200 does not reach outside California for FLSA-based claims. | No; §17200 does not apply to out-of-state FLSA violations under these circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985) (analysis of state-law choice and constitutionality for applying state laws)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 304 (1981) (state-law application with significant contacts not arbitrary/unfair)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) (dormant-commerce due-process balance for state regulation)
- Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008) (Sullivan II; Labor Code and §17200 apply to California work by out-of-state plaintiffs)
- Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal.4th 1191 (Cal. 2011) (Sullivan IV; Cal. overtime law and §17200 apply to California work; §17200 not extend to out-of-state FLSA violations)