The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a nearest-tenth rounding policy is lawful if it is fair and neutral on its face and "it is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked," and that either the plaintiff failed to show that she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or the employer raised a triable issue of fact.
On February 13, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied petitions for review and depublication filed by the plaintiff.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.