Wage Law

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a petition for review in Harris v. Investor's Business Daily, Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 28.

In Harris, aggrieved telemarketers alleged Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. §§200 et seq.) claims as the underlying basis for a UCL claim under Business & Professions Code § 17200. Investor's Business Daily argued that the UCL claim was preempted by the FLSA, in that FLSA collective actions required members to opt in rather than the typical class action opt out procedures. The Court of Appeal found no preemption, and therefore reversed the trial court's order sustaining a demurrer. The Court of Appeal also reversed a summary adjudication order, on the ground that the defendant had not proven both that commissions made up more than half of the telemarketers' compensation, and that they received more than one and one-half times the minimum wage. Finally, the Court of Appeal reversed a summary adjudication order determining that the employer's chargeback policy was lawful under Labor Code § 221.