Beard

INTRODUCTION

17 In this employment dispute, plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings. For the 18 19 reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.

STATEMENT

20 A prior order provided the facts in full (Dkt. No. 51). In brief, plaintiff Jerome Beard 21 has worked as a software sales representative at defendant International Business Machines 22 Corporation since 1983. IBM paid Beard a salary plus uncapped commissions during his 23 employment. IBM would assign Beard a revenue target and tie his commission compensation 24 to a percentage of the target attained. 25 In July 2017, Beard received an “incentive plan letter” (IPL) from IBM that described 26 his commission plan for the rest of 2017 and set his sales quota at $934,736 (Dkt. No. 30-1). 27 He also received and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that repeatedly stated that payments 28 1 |] under the compensation plan would be uncapped. Furthermore, the PowerPoint stated that the IPL was the “primary 2017 education for IBM sales employees” and “[i]t covers the information 3 || you will need to understand your 2017 plan.” In 2017, Beard closed two large deals that generated $25.2 million in revenue subject to…