California Employment Law Blog

California Supreme Court Clarifies Regular Rate of Pay Calculation

Posted by Timothy B. Del Castillo | Mar 12, 2018 | 0 Comments

Image of cash money

Last week the California Supreme Court provided clarity to employers regarding how non-exempt employees who are paid bonuses should be paid.  Under both federal and state law, employers are required to pay overtime at a premium of the "regular rate of pay."  Despite appearances, the phrase "regular rate of pay" does not mean the normal hourly rate.  The regular rate of pay must include most forms of remuneration that a non-exempt employee receives.  For example, flat sum bonuses awarded for performance must be factored into the "regular rate of pay" before the employee's overtime rate is determined.  

Why is it important to get the calculation right?  If an employer fails to correctly calculate the employee's regular rate of pay, the overtime rate will be off.  If the overtime rate is lower than it should be if the proper calculation were used, the result could be underpayment of employee wages for pay periods in which the employee worked overtime.  And of course, depending on how the longer the calculation was incorrect and how many employees were affected, those unpaid wages can really add up.  

In Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp., the California Supreme Court rejected the federal approach to calculating the regular rate of pay in favor of an approach that is more favorable to employees.  Under the federal calculation, the regular rate of pay calculation factors in a bonus by dividing the bonus amount by all hours worked in the period the bonus was earned, non-overtime hours and overtime hours.  In rejecting the federal approach, the California Supreme Court held that an employer must divide a flat-sum bonus by only the non-overtime hours worked during the period, not by all hours.  This will result in a greater regular rate of pay.  Finally, the Supreme Court also held that this rule applies retroactively, so there is no safe harbor for employers who may have believed they were doing it correctly by following the federal approach.  

Often this is not a simple or easy calculation.  Moreover, there is additional complexity regarding what kinds of remuneration must be factored into the regular rate calculation at all.  Employers would be wise to consult with their employment counsel if there is uncertainty regarding whether the calculation is being done properly.  

About the Author

Timothy B. Del Castillo

Tim practices employment law in California and represents both employees and employers in federal and state courts, administrative hearings, arbitrations, mediations, and in direct negotiations. Tim also offers advice and counsel and training to businesses to help them achieve compliance with California employment laws.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

QUALITY REPRESENTATION FROM A TRUSTED ADVISOR.

Castle Law’s goal is to become your trusted advisor and to provide real value for all of your employment law needs. To become our client’s trusted advisors, we aim to provide quality representation and sound advice time and again.

FREE CONSULTATION.

There is no charge for the initial phone consultation. Attorney Tim Del Castillo will personally speak with you about your case and provide you with an honest analysis. Fill out the contact form on the website with detailed information about your circumstances and we will schedule a telephone appointment.

Copyright © 2018 Tim Del Castillo

Attorney Timothy B. Del Castillo is responsible for the content on this website, which may contain an advertisement. The information on this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship and no attorney-client relationship is formed until conflicts have been cleared and both parties have signed a written fee agreement. Please do not send any confidential information through the website. The materials and information on this website are for informational purposes only and should not be relied on as legal advice. PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE OUTCOMES. Any testimonials or endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.

Menu