Search This Blog

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Oracle v. Sullivan Oral Argument

The UCL Practitioner has this report on the Cal. Supreme Court oral argument in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., written by Thomas R. Kaufman of Sheppard Mullin. In Sullivan, the Ninth Circuit has asked the Supreme Court to decide the following issues:
First, does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week?

Second, does § 17200 apply to the overtime work described in question one?

Third, does § 17200 apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA?
Tom concludes:
From the questioning, it looks as though most of the justices are leaning to holding that out-of-state employees of a California-based company who come to California must be paid overtime under California law (e.g., daily overtime and California exemptions apply).
As always, the UCL Practitioner is the best resource around for all things UCL.

1 comment:

  1. It would be interesting if the California Supreme Court did hold that even employees out of state, working for a California employer would be entitled to the same overtime pay as other employees working in California. I think that as long as the California employer is covered by the FLSA and the employee is considered as "non-exempt", then he is entitled to overtime pay, regardless of where he performs his work because his employer is covered by the law anyway.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.