White

MEMORANDUM *

Julie White appeals the district court’s order granting Digex summary judgment. White claims that Digex, her former employer, failed to pay her overtime, discriminated against her on account of her gender and in retaliation for her complaints of gender discrimination and labor code violations, and breached the parties’ contract and covenant of good faith and fair dealing. We reverse and remand with respect to White’s overtime claims, but we affirm the district court’s order in all other respects.

I. OVERTIME CLAIM

White’s overtime claim withstands summary judgment because Digex has failed to show that she is an exempt professional employee. 2 California law requires Digex *657 to pay White overtime unless it satisfies its burden of proving that she is exempt. See, e.g., Bothell v. Phase Metrics, Inc., 299 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir.2002). The exemptions are construed narrowly against the employer. Id. at 1124 — 25 (quoting Kleve v. County of Santa Clara, 208 F.3d 1085 , 1089 (9th Cir.2000)); Nordquist v. McGraw — Hill Broad. Co., 32 Cal.App.4th 555, 562 , 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 221 (1995). In order to exempt White from overtime pay, Digex must show that she is a…