Facts

The six plaintiffs were staffing managers. Their claims included causes of action for overtime wages owed, missed rest and meal breaks, false pay stub penalties, unpaid or underpaid bonus monies owed to three of the plaintiffs, and a related claim under Business and Professions Code section 17200 for restitution for unfair competition. Each of the plaintiffs signed an employment agreement requiring them to pursue claims against defendants within six months of their termination. The court declared these agreements to be void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy.

The case was bifurcated and the plaintiffs' UCL claim was severed, tried first by the court without a jury, over defendant's objection. Judge Andrew P. Banks granted the defense motion to try the exemption defense first and to allow defendant to go first in presenting its proof. The trial of the UCL exemption defense lasted 17 days. After the defense rested, plus about three hours of oral argument, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the bifurcated issue of whether the plaintiffs were administratively exempt, and declared its findings were dispositive of the untried Labor Code claims as well.

The court specifically held that all six plaintiffs were "production" employees who were not eligible for the administrative exemption because they worked in the company's "day to day operations." In so ruling, he refused to apply the federal regulations adopted by the wage orders.

The judge also ruled that defendant's evidence did not establish that plaintiffs had the requisite discretion and independent judgment to be administratively exempt. He further held they did not work under only general supervision in a specialized line of work.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that they were improperly classified as being exempt from overtime and other California labor laws.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended the plaintiffs were exempt administrative employees who were responsible for managing the flow of RHI services to RHI customers and that they were barred from pursuing their claims by their failure to file their claims in accordance with the statute of limitations contained in their employment agreement.

Result

$1,609,625 ($615,000 judgment entered on Feb. 8, 2008; $978,122 attorney fees awarded on June 10, 2008; $16,503 costs).

Other Information

Defendant has filed a notice of appeal.