A Ninth Circuit panel recently ruled that Target Corp.’s pay practices comport with California law, and as such, Target’s motion for judgment on the pleadings should have been granted by the district court. See Bowen v. Target Corp., No. 21-56136 (9th Cir., Nov. 1, 2022). The unpublished opinion thus offers guidance to California employers who are faced with the task of calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay (RROP).
Plaintiffs claimed that Target’s method for calculating overtime pay violated the holding of Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp., 411 P.3d 528 (Cal. 2018), which concerned the calculation of an employee’s RROP where an employee earns a flat-sum attendance bonus. In that case, because flat-sum bonuses do not increase as more hours are worked, the California Supreme Court ruled that only non-overtime hours should be included in the calculation. Otherwise, the numerator in the calculation (the total compensation) would remain the same while the denominator (the total hours worked) would increase, meaning an employee’s RROP would progressively decrease as more hours were worked. Therefore, because Target included the total number of hours worked in its RROP calculations, as opposed to only non-overtime hours, the plaintiffs argued that Target’s practices violated California law.
The Ninth Circuit panel disagreed, however, noting that Target’s challenged pay calculations did not involve flat-sum bonuses. In contrast to the circumstances of Alvarado, Target’s...
Continue without agreeing We value your privacy With your agreement, we and our 386 partners use cookies or similar technologies to store, access, and process personal data like your visit on this...