Fisher & Phillips: California Inside-sales Exemption Jeopardized by Deferred Payment of Commissions | Practical Law

Fisher & Phillips: California Inside-sales Exemption Jeopardized by Deferred Payment of Commissions | Practical Law

This California Law Firm Publication by Fisher & Phillips LLP discusses the California Supreme Court's recent decision in Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. In this case, the employee (who was paid hourly wages semimonthly and commissions monthly) brought a class action suit alleging that her semimonthly pay checks did not meet the minimum-compensation requirement of the inside-sales exemption and therefore she was often paid less than minimum wage. The employer argued that commissions should be allocated to the pay period they were earned. The court unanimously held that for the inside-sales exemption to apply, the minimum-compensation requirement under the exemption must be satisfied in each workweek and paid in each pay period.

Fisher & Phillips: California Inside-sales Exemption Jeopardized by Deferred Payment of Commissions

by Fisher & Phillips LLP
Published on 16 Jul 2014California, United States
This California Law Firm Publication by Fisher & Phillips LLP discusses the California Supreme Court's recent decision in Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. In this case, the employee (who was paid hourly wages semimonthly and commissions monthly) brought a class action suit alleging that her semimonthly pay checks did not meet the minimum-compensation requirement of the inside-sales exemption and therefore she was often paid less than minimum wage. The employer argued that commissions should be allocated to the pay period they were earned. The court unanimously held that for the inside-sales exemption to apply, the minimum-compensation requirement under the exemption must be satisfied in each workweek and paid in each pay period.