Negri

Negri v. Koning & Associates

Good Law
156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 697·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 384·216 Cal. App. 4th 392·2013 WL 2097418·20 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1166
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 16, 2013H037804California2,842 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

California law provides that, absent an exemption, an employee must be paid time and a half for work in excess of 40 hours per week. To be exempt from that requirement the employee must perform specified duties in a particular manner and be paid “a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment.” (Lab. Code, § 515, subd. (a).)

The question presented in this case is whether a compensation scheme based solely upon the number of hours worked, with no guaranteed minimum, can be considered a “salary” within the meaning of the pertinent wage and hour laws. We conclude that such a payment schedule is not a salary and, therefore, does not qualify the employee as exempt. Since the trial court found the employee was exempt, we shall reverse.

A. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Mark Negri is an insurance claims adjuster who was employed by defendant Koning & Associates from May 2004 through October 2005. He was paid $29 per hour with no minimum guarantee. When he worked more than 40 hours in a week he still received only $29 per hour. Plaintiff sued defendant for overtime pay. Defendant denied that plaintiff was owed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.