#Neil schwartz daily schedule pdf trial

#Neil schwartz daily schedule pdf trial

Appellants argue the trial court erred when it presumed a 45-hour workweek to make this calculation because Liday was exempt from overtime. It calculated Liday’s regular, hourly rate to be $15.38 by dividing her averaged weekly salary by 45 hours and concluded appellants owed Liday minimum wages at that rate for the hours she worked in excess of 45 per week. But, to calculate her unpaid minimum wages for that period, the court presumed Liday’s salary compensated her for a regular, nonovertime 45-hour workweek-the number of hours above which overtime is due under the 2014 law. The trial court acknowledged Liday was exempt from overtime requirements for the period from 2010 through 2013. Code, § 1454.)1 The DWBR applied only to the last three months of Liday’s employment. Under that law, personal attendants cannot work more than nine hours per day or more than 45 hours per week unless paid one and one-half 2 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of those limits. The Legislature passed the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (DWBR) to provide personal attendants with overtime protection beginning January 1, 2014. Before 2014, live-in domestic workers classified as “personal attendants” were exempt from California’s overtime requirements but were entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked.

Appellants do not contest the trial court’s finding that Liday worked more hours than they had argued at trial, but they do challenge the propriety of the formula the court used to determine Liday’s unpaid minimum wages due from April 2010 through December 2013. It also found Liday’s salary did not compensate her at the statutory minimum wage for all the hours it found she had worked. After a bench trial, the trial court found Liday was a “personal attendant” under Wage Order No. Liday worked for appellants as their children’s live-in caretaker for a fixed salary of $3,000 per month. Lea Liday sued her former employers, appellants, for unpaid wages incurred from April 2010 to April 2014. _ INTRODUCTION When determining a claim for unpaid minimum wages, does the court presume that a fixed salary paid to a live-in domestic worker-who is exempt from overtime but subject to minimum wage laws-covers only the regular, nonovertime work hours mandated for nonexempt workers? Or, does the court determine the worker’s unpaid minimum wages by calculating the difference between the total number of hours she worked at the prevailing minimum wage rate and the amount she received through her salary? That is the question this wage-and-hour appeal poses. Evangelista for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Keeton and Ben Rothman for Defendants and Appellants. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Josh M. PETER SIM et al., Defendants and Appellants. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for recalculation of the unpaid wages plaintiff was owed for work she performed from April 2010 through December 2013 applying an $8 per hour rate of pay for each hour she worked.įiled 9/25/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LEA LIDAY, Plaintiff and Respondent, B283180 Los Angeles County Super. Therefore, the court held that the trial court erred when it presumed plaintiff's monthly salary compensated her for only 45 hours of work per week. In this case, the parties did not dispute the trial court's finding that they did not agree to an hourly rate, and nothing in the record demonstrates they agreed plaintiff would work a set number of hours per week.

The Court of Appeal held that, because personal attendants were exempt from overtime requirements before 2014, California law in effect at the time did not limit the number of hours a personal attendant's salary could cover, except to require that it pay at least the minimum wage of $8 per hour for each hour worked. In 2014, the Legislature passed the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (DWBR) to provide personal attendants with overtime protection beginning January 1, 2014. Plaintiff filed suit against her former employers for unpaid wages as a live-in caretaker for her employers' children.