- Emergency Consultation Services
- Risk Management Services
- Who We Are
- Our People
- What We Do
- Why We Are Different
- What’s New
- Where We Are
By: Christine C. Lee
Calculating the correct overtime pay rate for non-exempt employees just got a little more complicated for California employers who elect to pay bonuses. In the recent case of Alvarado v. Dart Container Corporation of California, plaintiff Hector Alvarado, a non-exempt warehouse worker, was paid a flat “attendance bonus” of $15 per day in addition to his hourly rate if he worked a full shift on a Saturday or Sunday. Because there was no California statute, regulation or wage order directing how employers should calculate the rate of pay for overtime purposes when such non-discretionary flat sum bonuses are paid, the employer, Dart Container Corporation of California, followed the methodology set forth in the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Dart calculated the overtime pay rate by taking Mr. Alvarado’s total earnings in the relevant pay period, which included the attendance bonuses, and dividing that figure by all hours worked in the pay period including overtime. Using this figure, Dart paid Mr. Alvarado 1.5 times this rate for every overtime hour worked.
To thank his employer for the bonuses, Mr. Alvarado sued Dart in a wage and hour class action alleging Dart miscalculated the overtime rate of pay. He argued Dart should have divided the period’s earnings and attendance bonuses only by the amount of non-overtime hours worked which would have resulted in a marginally higher overtime rate of pay. In support of his position, Mr. Alvarado relied on the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s (DLSE) Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual which states that when employees earn a flat sum bonus, their overtime rate is determined by dividing the regular and bonus earnings only by the regular non-overtime hours worked during the relevant pay period. The case reached the California Supreme Court for guidance.
There, Dart argued because its formula complied with the federal FLSA when California law gave no guidance, its methodology was lawful. Dart also argued the DLSE Manual was merely an underground regulation and interpretation of the law and therefore was not entitled to any special deference. The Court agreed the DLSE manual was not entitled to special deference. Nevertheless, the Court held “[W]e are obligated to prefer an interpretation that discourages employers from imposing overtime work and that favors the protection of the employee’s interests.” The Court found Mr. Alvarado’s method was “marginally more favorable to employees” and should now be the law of California. To add further ambiguity to its ruling, the Court cautioned this methodology only applied to non-production related flat sum bonuses and not necessarily to production-based bonuses such as piece rate or commission-based bonuses.
Dart requested only prospective application of the Court’s rulings since California law had been unclear up to that point. The Court refused the request, leaving Dart on the hook for 4+ years’ worth of unpaid overtime, penalties for inaccurate wage statements, penalties under Labor Code §203 and California’s Private Attorney General Act, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The unfortunate result of this decision is that employers may stop bonusing non-exempt employees and/or flee California to avoid this kind of catastrophic litigation.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Christine Lee at email@example.com.