This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


Modification: Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California

Ruling by

Ming Chin

Lower Court

Riverside County Superior Court
To determine rate of overtime pay, a flat sum bonus must be factored into regular pay rate via dividing bonus by nonovertime hours actually worked.



Court

CASC 4DCA/2

Cite as

2018 DJDAR 3764

Published

Apr. 27, 2018

Filing Date

Apr. 25, 2018

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Reversed


HECTOR ALVARADO,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

DART CONTAINER CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant and Respondent.

 

No. S232607

Ct.App. 4/2 E061645

Riverside County

Super. Ct. No. RIC1211707

Supreme Court of California

Filed April 25, 2018

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

 

THE COURT:

 

The opinion in this matter filed on March 5, 2018, and appearing in the California Official Reports at 4 Cal.5th 542, is modified as follows:

1. On page 551 of the published opinion, a footnote is inserted at the end of the sentence that reads: "Plaintiff's formula turns out to be marginally more favorable to employees; the key distinction between the two formulas is whether the bonus is allocated to all hours worked, or only to the nonovertime hours worked." The new footnote, which is numbered as footnote 2, reads: "Defendant's formula and plaintiff's formula have one thing in common: both use the pay period as the basis for calculating an employee's regular rate of pay. In other words, neither party suggests that regular rate of pay should be calculated on a workweek basis, which might result in an employee having two or more regular rates of pay in a single pay period. This opinion follows the lead of the parties in using the pay period as the basis for calculating regular rate of pay, but we did not grant review to decide whether, under California law, regular rate of pay is properly calculated on a pay-period basis or a workweek basis, and nothing in this opinion should be interpreted as deciding that question."

2. On pages 551, 553, 555, 561, 564-565, 567, 570, and 572 of the published opinion, current footnotes 2 through 12 are renumbered as footnotes 3 through 13.

This modification does not affect the judgment.

The request for clarification and/or modification of the opinion, filed by amicus curiae California Employment Law Council on March 22, 2018, is denied.

#271172

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390