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.

Employment Law
Failure to Pay
Wage and Hour

Roxanna Menes, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Roche Laboratories Inc.

Published: Apr. 19, 2008 | Result Date: Jan. 7, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:07-cv-01444-ER-FFM Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Todd M. Schneider
(Schneider, Wallace, Cottrell & Konecky LLP)

Vahe Hovanessian
(Law Office of Vahe Hovanessian)

Kevin T. Barnes
(Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes)

Gregg Lander
(Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes)


Defendant

Aimee M. Florin

Jessica R. Perry
(Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP)

Heather Glatter

Julie A. Totten
(Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP)

Michael Delikat
(Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Roxanda Menes was a sales representative for defendant Roche Laboratories Inc. from March 28, 1999 to June 28, 2005. She promoted prescription drugs to physicians, hospitals and pharmacies without selling them. She brought a class action lawsuit against defendant on behalf on all similarly-situated employees for violations of the California Labor Code.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended defendant failed to pay sales representatives for overtime as required by state regulations. It also failed to provide meal and rest breaks and deprived employees of accurate itemized wage statements. The defendants violated Labor Code Section 203 and conducted unfair business practices.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended plaintiff was an outside salesperson exempt from state-mandated overtime pay. Instead, she worked autonomously promoting defendant's products, choosing which clients to call upon each day. Even if plaintiff was not primarily engaged in sales, she would still be exempt from overtime pay under the administrative exemption.

Damages

The plaintiff sought declaratory relief and monetary compensation for wages and breaks defendant owed her. She also sought attorney fees.

Result

Judge Edward Rafeedie granted summary judgment in defendant's favor, finding plaintiff qualified as an outside salesperson exempt from overtime pay. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal.


#125237

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

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