Search form

California Supreme Court: Nonresident-Employees Entitled to State Overtime When Working in State

By Mark S. Askanas and Cynthia L. Filla
  • August 16, 2011

Nonresidents of California are entitled to overtime pay under state law for work performed in California, the California Supreme Court has held, answering questions about California law at the request of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 4th 1191 (Cal. 2011).

The following state law questions were asked of the California Supreme Court about the application of the Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) to nonresident workers:

1. Does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer of out-of-state plaintiffs so that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of 40 hours per week?

2. Does the UCL apply to the overtime work described in Question 1?

3. Does the UCL apply to overtime work performed outside of California for a California-based employer of out-of-state plaintiffs if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act?

In response, the California Supreme Court held as follows:

1. The California Labor Code applies to overtime work performed in California for “a California-based employer” by out-of-state plaintiffs “in the circumstances of this case”;

2. The UCL applies to such overtime work performed in California by out-of-state plaintiffs; and

3. The UCL does not apply to overtime work performed outside of California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of the case if the employer failed to comply with FLSA overtime provisions.

The Court explained that if the state legislature intended to create exceptions to the law for nonresidents working in California for state-based firms, it could have done so.  Further, the Court determined that no conflict of state laws existed. 

The Court expressly limited its holding to Labor Code provisions governing overtime.  It stated California’s interest in the content of out-of-state pay stubs or treatment of vacation time was not at issue.  The apparently careful phrasing of “California-based employers” in the decision appears to indicate the application of the case should be limited to companies, like defendant Oracle, who are headquartered in California.  Thus, whether an out-of-state employee working in California for a non-California-based company is covered is still an open question.

All employers who send non-exempt employees residing in other states to work in California should seek legal counsel regarding the impact of this decision on the way they calculate overtime during the duration of such California assignments.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this and other workplace developments.

©2011 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

October 21, 2016

Kentucky High Court Strikes Down Louisville Minimum Wage Law; Lexington Law Also Affected

October 21, 2016

Local governments in Kentucky lack the authority to establish their own minimum wage rates, the Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled 6-1. Kentucky Restaurant Ass’n, et al. v. Louisville/Jefferson Cty. Metro Gov’t, 2015-SC-000371-TG (Oct. 20, 2016). The Court struck down a Louisville ordinance that required employers within the... Read More

October 20, 2016

Wage Orders Likely Pose Compliance Issues for New York Employers

October 20, 2016

For New York employers, many wage-and-hour obligations are not set forth in the statute. Rather, they are outlined in Wage Orders promulgated by the New York State Department of Labor. The New York DOL has published proposed modified Wage Orders in the State Register, implementing changes to the existing Wage Orders based on the recently... Read More

October 4, 2016

New Jersey Minimum Wage to Increase in 2017

October 4, 2016

New Jersey’s minimum wage will increase from $8.38 per hour to $8.44 per hour effective January 1, 2017, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJDOL) has announced. New Jersey voters approved a referendum in November 2013 modifying the New Jersey Constitution and requiring the NJDOL annually to review the... Read More

Related Practices