Michael D. Singer

Last year Singer, a name partner at Cohelan Khoury & Singer, persuaded a state appellate panel to reverse a trial court’s adverse ruling in a significant wage and hour class action that changed the way commission salespeople are paid in California.

It was hardly the first time he has prevailed in court for workers. Over a 33-year career Singer has served as lead or co-lead counsel in obtaining class certification in contested proceedings against California Pizza Kitchen Inc., Raytheon Co., Les Schwab Tire Center, AT&T Inc., FedEx Corp., Penske Truck Leasing Co. L.P., Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. and Save Mart Supermarkets.

His 2012 landmark win in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1003, confirmed employers’ obligation to provide meal and rest periods in accordance with California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and established employees’ right to class certification of off-the-clock meal and rest period claims.

In last year’s case, Singer said the issue was clear: Commission salespeople deserve rest break pay. “After losing to everybody’s shock in the trial court, we knew we had a strong case on appeal because there was already much established law on rest break pay for piece rate employees, and we argued successfully that there is no functional distinction between piece rate and commission employees who are not getting paid for rest breaks.” Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC, 9 Cal.App.5th 98 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. March 20, 2017).

The panel, in an opinion by 2nd District Court of Appeal Associate Justice John L. Segal, directed the trial judge, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle, to vacate his order granting summary judgment to Stoneledge Furniture LLC. The case then settled for nearly $4 million, including $1.3 million in attorney fees.

“The significance is that every commission employee in California must be paid an additional amount,” Singer said. “Employers had been getting cute and claiming they paid commission employees hourly at minimum wage rates, then recapturing that rest break pay. Now there are no longer these fictional arrangements.”

Wrote Segal: “For sales associates whose commissions did not exceed the minimum rate in a give week, the company clawed back (by deducting from future paychecks) wages advanced to compensate employees for hours worked, including rest periods. The advances or draws against future commissions were not compensation for rest periods because they were not compensation at all. At best they were interest-free loans.”

Singer said he’s gratified to learn the case has now entered the legal lexicon, with other lawyers referring to “Vaquero claims.” “It is my great pleasure and privilege to enforce workers’ rights in the workplace,” he added.

— John Roemer