Zelasko-Barrett

Zelasko-Barrett v. Brayton-Purcell, LLP

Good Law
131 Cal. Rptr. 3d 114·198 Cal. App. 4th 582·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1080·18 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 674
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 17, 2011No. A130540California3,898 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pollak, J.

Plaintiff Matthew Zelasko-Barrett, a former law clerk at the law firm of defendant Brayton-Purcell, LLP, appeals from an adverse summary judgment on his claim for failure to pay him overtime wages and provide other benefits allegedly required by California law. He alleges that the law firm incorrectly classified him as employed in a professional capacity, exempting, the firm from the obligation to pay him overtime wages and provide other benefits. We agree with the trial court that although plaintiff had not yet been licensed to practice law in California, he was nonetheless a law school graduate and performed duties that brought him within an exemption for those engaged in a learned profession. His claim for additional wages and benefits therefore was properly rejected.

Background

Brayton-Purcell, LLP (Brayton), is a law firm with approximately 180 employees headquartered in Novato. The firm primarily represents individuals seeking damages for personal injuries caused by exposure to defective or harmful products such as asbestos, tobacco, mold, and defective medical drugs. Following plaintiff’s graduation from law school and before passing *585 the bar examination,…

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.