Rodriguez

Rodriguez v. Parivar, Inc.

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 26, 2022A158939California7,637 words

Opinion

Opinion

Streeter, J.

I. BACKGROUND

In February 2017, Rodriguez filed a complaint against Parivar 1 alleging, among other things, causes of action for Parivar’s failure to pay her overtime and provide her with meal periods and rest periods required under California’s labor laws. Rodriguez alleged that Parivar misclassified her as an exempt employee, contending that she “spent the majority of her time performing the exact same duties as non-exempt employees” at her restaurant. By way of affirmative defense, Parivar argued that under the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order No. 5-2001’s “executive exemption” Rodriguez was exempt from overtime, meal period and rest period requirements. The case proceeded to a jury trial over a two-week period in May 2019. The jury rejected Parivar’s executive exemption affirmative defense. By a 9 to 3 vote, the jury found Parivar failed to prove that, as the special verdict question put it, “Rodriguez performed exempt duties more than half of the time.”

The complaint names as defendants Parivar, Inc. and JIB

Management, Inc. (and also Jack in the Box, Inc., the claims against which were later dismissed with prejudice). Parivar, Inc. and Yadav Enterprises,…

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.