Harris

Harris v. Superior Court

Good Law
154 Cal. App. 4th 164·64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 547
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 16, 2007B195121, B195370California11,090 words

Opinion

Opinion

In these original proceedings we hold that plaintiffs are not exempt from the overtime compensation requirements imposed by California law. Defendants are insurance companies. Plaintiffs are the companies' claims adjusters, who seek damages based on overtime work for which* they allege they were not properly paid. Plaintiffs' claims are governed by two different California regulations: Wage Order 4 applies to claims arising before October 1, 2000, and Wage Order 4-2001 applies to claims arising thereafter. The matter is before us on the parties' cross-petitions for writ review.

Defendants claim that the administrative exemption to the overtime compensation requirements covers the adjusters. Plaintiffs claim that they are not covered by that exemption. Their dispute turns on the relationship between the administrative exemption and a legal distinction known in the case law as the "administrative/production worker dichotomy." The meaning of that phrase will become clear in due course. For now, it suffices to say that the trial court originally certified plaintiffs' proposed class on the ground that application of the administrative/production worker dichotomy was a…

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.