§Why CasetextPricing

ALVARADO v. DART CONTAINER CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits

26 Cited authorities

  1. Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co.

    20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 340 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a court evaluates if an employee was primarily engaged in exempt duties for purposes of the administrative exemption to overtime pay, it must consider "how the employee actually spends his or her time" and also "whether the employee's practice diverges from the employer's realistic expectations"

  2. Morillion v. Royal Packing

    22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 331 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that compulsory travel time on bus from departure point to work site is compensable

  3. Burden v. Snowden

    2 Cal.4th 556 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 345 times

    Docket No. S021885. April 30, 1992. Appeal from Superior Court of Orange County, No. 590772, William F. Rylaarsdam, Judge. COUNSEL Thomas Kathe, City Attorney, Filarsky Watt, Steve A. Filarsky, Pillsbury, Madison Sutro, Amy D. Hogue and Kevin M. Fong for Defendants and Appellants. Mayer Reeves, Thomas M. Reeves, Irving Berger, Martin J. Mayer, Whitmore, Johnson Bolanos, Richard S. Whitmore, Craig W. Patenaude and Helene L. Leichter as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants. John K. York

  4. Schachter v. Citigroup Inc.

    47 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 170 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding in dicta that "the shares of restricted stock issued to [plaintiff] also constituted a wage"

  5. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California

    6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 248 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the decision to not recirculate an EIR where new studies released after public review "merely serve to amplify . . . the information found in the draft EIR" and "do not alter th[e] analysis in any way"

  6. People v. Overstreet

    42 Cal.3d 891 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 284 times
    Reasoning that a statute should be construed "as favorably to the defendant as its language and the circumstance of its application reasonably permit"

  7. Apple Inc. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cnty.

    56 Cal.4th 128 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 91 times   8 Legal Analyses
    In Apple, the court noted that the Act made no mention of online commercial transactions, and predated the prevalence of such transactions by a decade.

  8. Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular

    209 Cal.App.4th 556 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 79 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting split shift Wage Order as a legal matter

  9. Indus. Welfare Comm'n v. Superior Court

    27 Cal.3d 690 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 137 times   9 Legal Analyses
    In Industrial Welfare Commission v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. 3d 690, 730 (1980), the California Supreme Court held that Labor Code section 351 required "that tips received by an employee... not reduce an employer's minimum wage obligation, either directly or indirectly."

  10. Huntington Mem'l Hosp. v. Superior Court

    131 Cal.App.4th 893 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 55 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Adopting standards under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act in determining how to calculate regular rate of pay under California law

  11. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. XIV § 1   Cited 49 times
    Confirming the Legislature's authority to establish a commission and grant it legislative and other powers over such matters

  12. Section 778.114 - Fluctuating Workweek Method of Computing Overtime

    29 C.F.R. § 778.114   Cited 382 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Prescribing total hours, including overtime, as the divisor when employers pay by shift without regard to fluctuating hours

  13. Section 11010 - Order Regulating Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions in the Manufacturing Industry

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 11010   Cited 120 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring employers to pay to each employee "not less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period"

  14. Section 778.209 - Method of inclusion of bonus in regular rate

    29 C.F.R. § 778.209   Cited 43 times   22 Legal Analyses

    (a)General rules. Where a bonus payment is considered a part of the regular rate at which an employee is employed, it must be included in computing his regular hourly rate of pay and overtime compensation. No difficulty arises in computing overtime compensation if the bonus covers only one weekly pay period. The amount of the bonus is merely added to the other earnings of the employee (except statutory exclusions) and the total divided by total hours worked. Under many bonus plans, however, calculations

  15. Section 778.502 - Artificially labeling part of the regular wages a "bonus"

    29 C.F.R. § 778.502   Cited 11 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a bonus is a sum paid in "addition to total wages usually because of extra effort of one kind or another, or as a reward for loyal service or as a gift"

  16. Section 778.203 - Premium pay for work on Saturdays, Sundays, and other "special days"

    29 C.F.R. § 778.203   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reiterating the "extra compensation" standard from the FLSA