California Appeal Court Allows Summary Judgment For Employer In Off-The-Clock Claim

Sheppard Mullin attorney Thomas Kaufman explains a California First District Court of Appeal decision that clarified the conditions that must obtain before an employer can be liable for an off-the-clock employment claim. The employer was deemed not to have been under constructive notice that the off-the-clock work was being done by one of the named plaintiffs, and the summary judgment dismissing him from the case was upheld by the appeal court. The origin of the controversy goes back to 2011, when pharmacy managers at Kaiser Foundation Hospitals went from salaried to hourly employees. As part of their 2012 lawsuit, three named plaintiffs alleged that they were not given enough of a budget increase or necessary tools to do the job in 40 hours. The employee in the appeal case had claimed the employer should have known he was working more than his designated 40 hours even though he did not record those hours and was not specifically asked to work them. This case, the author says, should be helpful in opposing class certification for other off-the-clock cases. It also suggests that employers should clearly articulate a policy prohibiting off-the-clock work, if that is their intent, and require employees to agree in writing not to do it.