Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.

Holding that "the damage is. . . certain" where employee proved that he performed work that was not paid in accordance with the statutes, and that damages can then be awarded if there is a "basis for a reasonable inference as to the extent of the damages"

Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court

Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"

Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co.

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"

Morillion v. Royal Packing

Holding that compulsory travel time on bus from departure point to work site is compensable

Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw

Holding that DLSE Enforcement Manual was not entitled to higher level of deference accorded a regulation because it was not adopted consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act's requirements of public notice and comment

Rutti v. Lojack Corp.

Holding that an alarm installation technician was not entitled to compensation for the time he spent driving an employer owned vehicle from his home to his first installation even though the employer required the technician to drive straight to and from work, avoid carrying passengers, and have his cell phone on during his commute

Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Sols., Inc.

Finding that employer restrictions on "nonemployee visitors, pets, and alcohol use" were relevant to determining control

Corbin v. Time Warner Entm't Advance/Newhouse P'ship

Holding that the FLSA requires rounding policies to be both facially neutral and neutral in application

See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (Pamela Silva)

Adopting rounding policy concluding that the policies underlying the federal regulation on rounding "apply equally to the employee-protective policies embodied in California labor law"

Gomez v. Lincare, Inc.

Looking to the Ninth Circuit's test to determine whether an employee was free to engage in personal activities while on call

Section 201 - Short title

Setting fourteen as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work

Section 207 - Maximum hours

Establishing overtime rules

Section 785.47 - Where records show insubstantial or insignificant periods of time

Codifying Anderson in regulation

Section 778.223 - Pay for non-productive hours distinguished

Stating that “hours worked” under § 207 “include: [a]ll time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to be on the employer's premises or at a prescribed workplace; and [a]ll time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work whether or not he is required to do so”

Rule 8.548 - Decision on request of a court of another jurisdiction