On July 21, 2014, the California Court of Appeal soundly rejected attempts by an employee in a proposed class action to challenge an employer’s practice of deducting partial-day absences from the leave banks of exempt employees, including partial-day absences in increments of less than four hours. Rhea v. General Atomics (“Rhea”). In this decision, the court not only confirmed that California law permitted the deduction of partial-day absences from the leave banks of exempt employees, but also clarified that such deductions may occur in any increment of time.
As many employers know, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and California law require an exempt employee to satisfy both the “salary” test and “duties” test (executive, administrative, or professional) to relieve an employer from paying overtime compensation. Under the “salary” test, an exempt employee must receive his or her full salary for any workweek in which the employee performs any work, regardless of the number of days or hours worked. In other words, an exempt employee’s wages cannot fluctuate based on the quality or quantity of work performed.
A primary exception to the rule against deductions from wages under the salary test is deductions resulting from absences from work for one or more full days for personal reasons, sickness or disability. Under this exception, employers are permitted to deduct wages in increments of one full day only. Employers cannot deduct partial-day absences from the wages of an exempt employee. However, according to federal law and a California court decision in Conley v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., employers may deduct partial-day absences from an exempt employee’s leave bank without violating the salary test.
In Rhea, the plaintiff, Lori Rhea, challenged the Conley decision, arguing that California’s unique anti-forfeiture provisions, which protect vacation wages from forfeiture once vested, do not permit partial-day deductions from an exempt employee’s leave bank. The Court of Appeal, however, rejected this argument in favor of the rationale in Conley, which recognized that an employer’s practice of deducting leave time for partial-day absences did not amount to a forfeiture, but merely allowed an employer to require an employee to use leave time in accordance with its terms and conditions. Moreover, the court refused to limit the holding in Conley to partial-day absences of four or more hours. Although the court in Conley expressly stated that its decision only addressed deductions for partial-day absences of four or more hours, the Rhea court held that the length of the partial-day absence does not impact an employer’s ability to deduct such absences from an employee’s leave time. Therefore, Rhea clarified that employers may deduct partial-day absences in any increment, including increments of less than four hours, from the leave time of exempt employees without violating California law or losing their exempt status. This is welcome news for California employers, allowing for added flexibility in administering paid time off benefits.
- Partner
Casandra Secord represents employers in single plaintiff and class action employment litigation involving allegations of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to accommodate, wrongful termination, wage and hour ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- Rotational Employees Can Have Their “On” And “Off” Weeks Counted Against Their FMLA Leave Entitlement
- Ninth Circuit Issues Important Decision on Per Diem Pay
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Victory for Trucking Industry: California Meal and Rest Break Rules Preempted by Federal Law as to Commercial Drivers
- They Say Never Discuss Politics In Polite Company, But How Can Employers Handle Impolitic Off-Duty Conduct?
- DOL Permits Back-of-the-Restaurant Staff to Share in Servers’ Tips
- Can California Employers Be Liable For Failure To Prevent Something That Never Happened?
- Employer’s Delay is Fatal to Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement
- California Employers: The federal Department Of Labor’s Final Rule For Worker Classifications Does Not Eliminate The Requirements Under California’s ABC Test
- Court Holds California Law Applies to Offshore Workers on Oil Platforms
- More Training Required for Human Resource Employees and Managers in California
Popular Categories
- (40)
- (135)
- (42)
- (22)
- (6)
- (6)
- (31)
- (26)
- (22)
- (14)
- (5)
- (6)
- (4)
- (3)
- (3)
- (14)
- (9)
- (2)
- (2)
- (1)
- (3)
- (1)
- (3)
- (1)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Christopher S. Andre
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- Alicia A. Belock
- Eddy R. Beltran
- Rex Darrell Berry
- William M. Betley
- Brigham M. Cheney
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Alfonso Estrada
- Lauren D. Fierro
- Paul S. Fleck
- Robert Fried
- L. Brent Garrett
- Carol A. Gefis
- Kieran D. Hartley
- Amber S. Healy
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Mia A. Lomedico
- Jorge J. Luna
- Michael J. Morphew
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Justin R. Peters
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Lauren B. Shelby
- Ann K. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susana P. Solano
- Ethan G. Solove
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Brian M. Wheeler
- Glen A. Williams
- Kimberley A. Worley
- Lisa C. Zaradich
Archives
2021
2020
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
2019
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011