Johar

Johar v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 13, 2022A162563California9,533 words

Opinion

Opinion

Streeter, J.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Backdrop, Submission of Claim to EDD, and EDD’s Ineligibility, Reimbursement, and Penalty Determinations Success Water Systems (SWS) sells water filtration equipment to residential customers under the brand name “EcoWater.” Its sales referrals come from Costco and are for Costco members. Johar worked for SWS as a sales representative beginning in April 2019. Her job was to visit the homes of prospective customers, demonstrate the use of SWS’s products using a “company test kit” and solicit sales on-site. After these visits, she fielded follow-up questions from sales prospects, and helped with preparation of the necessary order forms and related documentation once they decided to buy. Johar’s base pay was approximately $1,200 per month, paid twice monthly and calculated at a per diem rate, but the bulk of her compensation was in the form of commissions for completed sales, so she needed a continuing stream of work assignments in order to earn her full pay. Work assignments came from SWS schedulers, who dispatched her to sales appointments. Johar reported to Mari Lynn Johnson, an SWS Sales Manager. Carol Johnson was in charge of issuing checks for…

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.