Taylor v. United Parcel Service Inc.
17 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 307
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Taylor sued UPS for unpaid overtime, meal/rest penalties, and related claims, arguing misclassification as exempt.
- UPS moved for summary judgment, contending Taylor was exempt as executive and administrative under Wage Order 9.
- Court granted summary judgment, ruling Taylor was exempt; appeal challenged both executive and administrative classifications.
- Taylor held Hub Supervisor, ORS, and Center Manager roles with long hours and salaried compensation, supervising multiple employees.
- Evidence showed Taylor’s duties included management, supervision, training, discipline, budgeting overlap, and interface with customers and unions.
- DLSE manuals were deemed void, but agency opinions could still be persuasive; court independently reviewed applicable exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Taylor properly exempt as executive? | Taylor was not primarily managing a recognized unit and lacked hiring/firing authority. | Taylor met all elements of the executive exemption, including supervision of two or more employees and discretionary duties. | No triable issue; Taylor was executive exempt |
| Was Taylor properly exempt as administrative? | Taylor’s duties were production/operational rather than policy-directed. | Taylor performed office/nonmanual work directly related to UPS policies and general operations with discretion. | No triable issue; Taylor was administrative exempt |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (de novo review standards for summary judgment)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (burden-shifting and summary judgment in wage cases)
- Todd v. Dow, 19 Cal.App.4th 253 (Cal. App. 1993) (framework for summary judgment burden)
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999) (state law preemption and protection breadth)
- Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cal.4th 557 (Cal. 1996) (interpretation of wage orders and regulatory context)
- Bothell v. Phase Metrics, Inc., 299 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (definition of customarily recognized department or subdivision)
- Bell II, 87 Cal.App.4th 805 (Cal. App. 2001) (administrative vs. production dichotomy and agency guidance)
- Alcala v. Western Ag Enterprises, 182 Cal.App.3d 546 (Cal. App. 1986) (use of federal authority as persuasive in state exemptions)
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (agency letters and persuasive authority under wage orders)
- Combs v. Skyriver Communications, Inc., 159 Cal.App.4th 1242 (Cal. App. 2008) (discretion and significance in administrative exemptions context)