Litigation related to the misclassification of nonexempt employees has been heating up over the past few years, and class actions are a legitimate and potentially costly worry for employers.
In Taylor v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the California Court of Appeals recently weighed in on the claims of David Taylor, a California-based UPS employee since 1979.
Over the past 12 years, Taylor held three different positions — air hub supervisor, on-road supervisor, and center manager. All three jobs were salaried positions that paid more than double the state minimum wage.
Exempt or nonexempt? How to get it right.
In each position, he regularly worked more than eight hours a day, and he often skipped breaks and ate lunch at his desk while he continued working. Taylor also supervised numerous hourly employees and lower-level full- and part-time supervisors in each position.
Since 1999, Taylor received “Management Incentive Program” awards of UPS stock, ranging in value from about $9,400 to $18,500 (nonexempt employees aren’t eligible for stock awards). Taylor also received annual bonuses equal to a half-month’s salary.
In 2009, Taylor sued UPS under state law, alleging that it misclassified him as an exempt employee; he sought to recover unpaid overtime and other benefits owed to nonexempt employees. UPS argued that Taylor wasn’t entitled to nonexempt benefits because he fell within both the executive and administrative exemptions. After the trial court ruled in UPS’s favor and dismissed the case, Taylor appealed.
How to avoid costly misclassification errors: May 17 webinar
Tomorrow, we’ll look at how the court ruled in Taylor’s case. We’ll also tell you about a can’t-miss webinar — specifically for California employers &mdsh; that will help you avoid costly misclassification mistakes at your workplace.
Download your free copy of Who’s Entitled to Overtime: How To Avoid Mistakes When Classifying California Employees today!
This case is a good reminder that even very strong, longtime employees can pose lawsuit risks if you don’t classify them correctly–and the longer they’ve work for you, the higher the tab you’ll need to pay if, in fact, you should have been paying them OT all along.
This case is a good reminder that even very strong, longtime employees can pose lawsuit risks if you don’t classify them correctly–and the longer they’ve work for you, the higher the tab you’ll need to pay if, in fact, you should have been paying them OT all along.