Susan Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Good Law
689 F.3d 1134·19 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1029·12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9426·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17322
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 17, 201210-56846California1,888 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

This panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, having heard the above-entitled case, hereby certifies to the Supreme Court of California that, in this case, there are questions concerning the law of California which are determinative of the case and on which there is no clear controlling precedent in the California judicial decisions. We therefore respectfully request that the Supreme Court of California answer the certified question presented below.

I. Question Certified

In this case, Peabody appeals four issues: 1) whether Peabody qualified for the commissions paid exemption of Section 3(D) of Wage Order 4-2001; 2) whether Peabody was owed additional minimum wage payments under Wage Order 4-2001 4(B); 3) whether Time Warner Cable, Inc. (“TWC”) was exempt from providing wage statements under California Labor Code Section 226(a); and 4) whether TWC owes Peabody any late wage payments under California Labor Code Section 203. However, the underlying question of whether Peabody’s commissions can be allocated over the course of a month, or whether the commissions must only be counted towards the pay period in which the commissions were paid, resolves…

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.