Failure to Prove Management Knew Employee Was Working Off the Clock Dooms Claim
June 16, 2014 by Vishtasp Soroushian
The California State Court of Appeal has dismissed a case in which the plaintiff sought recovery of unpaid overtime for work done off-the-clock in violation of California Labor Code section 1194, where he failed to provide concrete evidence that the employer knew he was working off the clock. In this summary of Jong v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. the Employment Law Practice at Beeson, Tayer and Bodine (BT&B) provides explanation of the Courts rationale for dismissal. In affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, the court offered future plaintiffs a snapshot of evidentiary hurdles that lie ahead in such cases.
Years before this case, Plaintiff Jong was reclassified as a non-exempt employee after the settlement of a previous class action (“reclassification case”). After the reclassification, he and other class members allegedly worked fifty or more hours per week in order to complete their jobs and performed the overtime work off-the clock. In moving for summary judgment, Kaiser argued, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that Jong failed to provide evidence that management “knew or should have known he worked” off the clock. While recognizing that the statute does not explicitly contain the “knew or should have known” requirement, the Court of Appeal noted that other courts had accepted that premise and find no reason to not do so itself.
Importantly, Jong acknowledged that Kaiser required him to clock in whenever he was working and that he was always paid for the hours he recorded, including overtime. Under those circumstances, the court found deposition testimony in the reclassification case by other Kaiser employees that they were working over forty hours prior to being reclassified as insufficient to establish that Jong put Kaiser on notice that he was working off the clock. The court also found insufficient an e-mail from a Kaiser executive in which he acknowledged receiving reports of potential off-the-clock work; Kaiser followed up with an e-mail to area managers directing them to ensure that their staff knew not to work off the clock and requiring staff to execute attestations acknowledging that a violation of that policy could lead to discipline. Also deemed insufficient was alarm code data indicating that Jong disarmed the alarm prior to the start of his shift when there was no evidence demonstrating that Kaiser had seen records indicating that he was working during that time.
California Labor Code is explicit in stating that employees that are classified as ‘nonexempt’ must be compensated for all hours including overtime as defined by the Code. If you as a business or employee are unfamiliar with those definitions we encourage you to go directly to the California Labor Code or visit BT&B’s blog on employment law for other cases related to overtime.
In this particular case related to the right to recover uncompensated overtime pay, the moral of the story is that to prevail on a cause of action for unpaid overtime, a plaintiff must be prepared to provide evidence that his/her employer knew or should have known that he/she was personally working off the clock. Evidence that the employer knew other employees were working off the clock might be insufficient to prevail. The California and Federal statutes governing overtime and other aspects of employment rights are complex and constantly being interpreted through cases such as this. We at BT&B strongly advise that individuals seek an attorney experienced in employment law to help determine how their situation relates to the law. With law offices in Oakland and Sacramento we are available to assist individuals in all areas of job rights.
The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.
