HOLDINGS: [1]-In accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 218(a), expressly permitting states to regulate overtime wages, there was no federal law preemption of California law regarding bonus overtime; [2]-California case law that relied on the policy considerations underlying Lab. Code, § 510, to adopt a state agency manual’s formula for calculating bonus overtime in the context of salaried employees working a fluctuating workweek was not dispositive with regard to hourly employees; [3]-The manual’s formula was not binding law because it had not been adopted in a formal rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act, Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq., nor was it persuasive because it cited no supporting legal authority; [4]-Absent a binding state formula, the employer lawfully used the federal formula in 29 C.F.R. § 778.209(a) for computing overtime on an hourly employee’s flat sum bonuses. Parties’ litigation attorneys Los Angeles appeal.
Outcome
Judgment affirmed.
Overview
The court certified the class in plaintiffs’ wage-and-hour class action because the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), and Rule 23(b)(3) were met. The court approved the class settlement under Rule 23(e)(1)(A) because the relative strength of the parties cases supported approval; the settlement amount was fair and reasonable; the release was appropriate; the settlement was the project of informed, arm’s length negotiations; and the class representatives strongly supported the settlement. The court also approved payment of class counsel fees and costs.
Outcome
Class certified. Settlement approved. Payments approved.