Steinhebel

Steinhebel v. Los Angeles Times Communications

Good Law
126 Cal. App. 4th 696·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 191·2005 Daily Journal DAR 1575·24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 351
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 2005B172415California5,319 words

Opinion

Opinion

Flier, J.

Appellants, Kurt Steinhebel et al., former “telesales” employees of respondent Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, appeal from a summary judgment issued on the ground it was lawful for respondent to contract with such employees to pay a commission upon the sale of a subscription immediately, subject to a charge-back if the customer did not keep the subscription for at least 28 days.

After reviewing pertinent law, we conclude that respondent’s charge-back policy does not violate the Labor Code and thus is lawful. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FACTS

Respondent is the publisher of Los Angeles’s leading local newspaper. Each of the appellants worked for respondent as a telesales employee. Telesales employees telephoned prospective customers to sell them newspaper subscriptions. They also telephoned existing customers with limited subscriptions to attempt to convert their subscriptions into broader ones. The type of subscriptions sold by respondent’s telesales employees enlarged over time, and the list ultimately included: (1) a daily subscription, (2) a daily subscription plus a Sunday subscription, (3) a Sunday-only subscription and (4) 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.