Paul Clark and Ramona Clark v. Ansel Adams Gallery
Published: Mar. 18, 2000 | Result Date: Jan. 13, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 6177810 Bench Verdict – $0
Court
Fresno Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Annette A. Ballatore
(San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District)
Facts
Plaintiffs Paul and Ramona Clark were employed in Yosemite National Park by the Yosemite Concession
Services and the Ansel Adams Gallery, respectively. When the Yosemite floods of January 1997 left them
temporarily unemployed, they were each offered and accepted hourly manual labor jobs at The Mono Inn at
Mono Lake.
The Clarks were offered and accepted salaried positions from Best Studio, Inc., d.b.a. the Ansel Adams
Gallery. At the time they accepted salaried employment, their place of residence was in El Portal, Calif.
Although they were living at the Mono Inn during its restoration and prior to opening.
After the Clarks accepted the salaried full time non-seasonal employment, they purchased a home in Lee
Vining, Calif. Best Studio Inc. paid the Clarks as exempt salaried employees and did not offer overtime
compensation for the overtime hours worked in helping restore and open the Mono Inn.
After the Mono Inn facility was opened and the overtime ceased, Best Studio decided the Clarks were not
exempt employees and changed their compensation from full time non-seasonal salaried employees to hourly
employees.
While the hourly rate was substantially the equivalent to their salaried compensation rates, the Clarks were not
guaranteed any minimum number of hours per week and were worked on an as needed basis. Considering the
seasonal nature of the Mono Inn, the Clarks did not feel they could meet their financial obligations as seasonal
hourly employees and resigned.
The Clarks filed a claim with the State of California to obtain overtime pay for the hours they had previously
worked and were ultimately compensated for their overtime prior to the formal hearing on their claim.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs demanded $54,000. The defendant offered $8,000, which was withdrawn.
Other Information
On Jan. 5, 2000, defendant filed its motion for summary adjudication. On Jan. 13, 2000, plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal of the entire action, with prejudice. Each side paid its own attorney fees and costs. No money was paid by defendant. The Clarks had obtained equivalent employment prior to the trial of the Fresno County case. The amount of their potential damages, the costs of trial and the potential for a defense verdict, taken together, did not justify continuing litigation. After six depositions and written discovery, a dismissal with prejudice with each party bearing its own costs and attorney fees, was offered and accepted by all parties.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390