Koehl v. Verio, Inc.
Decision Date | 13 September 2006 |
Docket Number | No. A108972.,No. A110110.,No. A110447.,A108972.,A110110.,A110447. |
Citation | 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 749,142 Cal.App.4th 1313 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Jeffrey KOEHL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. VERIO, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Thierman Law Firm, Mark R. Thierman; Hoffman & Lazear, H. Tim Hoffman and Arthur Lazear, Attorney for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Hale Friesen, Shannon M. Henderson, Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents.
Daniel E. Friesen, pro hac vice.
Appellants are Jeffrey Koehl, Wendy Lingo, Terrence McCarthy, and John Brehm (when referred to collectively, Appellants), former sales associates at respondent Verio, Inc. (Verio). Appellants's compensation plans provided for base pay and commissions, which commissions were paid when an order was booked, but which Verio could recover, or charge back, if certain conditions were not met. The fundamental question presented by this appeal is whether the commissions were wages, thus making the chargebacks unlawful under section 221 of the Labor Code. The trial court concluded that the commissions were not wages, and entered judgment for Verio. Our review leads to the same conclusion, and we affirm.
Verio is an Internet service provider that sells Internet access and web hosting services. Its Internet access customers are predominantly businesses with high volume Internet needs that generally require the purchase and installation of equipment and hardware in order to obtain ongoing Internet access through fiber optic lines. In 2000, Verio was purchased by Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (NTT) and began doing business as NTT/Verio.
Appellants worked primarily as sales associates2 for Verio between 1999 and 2002. Lingo began her employment in February 1999 as a sales associate and was a major sales associate when she left in May or June 2002. Brehm was a sales associate from July 2000 to September 2002. Koehl was employed from February 1999 to April 2002, first as a sales associate and later in key accounts development, which was, as he described it, "a program set up [where] they basically picked the top 10 or 14 reps in the county, started a new sales division that the main goal was to go out and hunt for Fortune 500, Fortune 1,000, and any logo-type business." McCarthy, the only named plaintiff who did not testify at trial, was a sales associate from March 1999 until June 2001.
Sales associates earned base salaries, described as their "standard wage" or "base pay," of between $40,000 and $70,000 per year; this amount remained constant regardless of the number of deals they booked. In other words, sales associates earned their base salaries for performing their basic job duties as employees of Verio, and received that base salary every month regardless of whether they booked any business. In addition to their base salaries, sales associates also earned commissions on sales pursuant to a series of compensation plans described in detail below. They earned commissions for their results, i.e., for sales that resulted in revenue for Verio.
The duties of the sales associates involved typical sales functions, described by Verio as "identifying customers, building relationships, attempting to sell Internet service, booking deals, following up with customers to finalize sales, and serving as a point of contact for billing and service questions after a sale." When a sales associate obtained an order, he or she would submit to the provisioning department a service order form, a two-page form consisting of the customer's name, contact information, services being ordered, and terms of the agreement. At this point the order was "booked" and the sales associate received an advance payment for the anticipated commission, without verification that the customer was a real company, that the signature was authentic, or that the customer had the financial ability to pay. In short, booking the order did not include an assessment of the quality of the business, but was an administrative step to make certain that the order form was complete. Manager approval of an order was not required unless the order deviated from Verio's standard terms. After an order was booked, the provisioning department called the customer to arrange for installation.
Although the provisioning department was directly responsible for making sure that service was installed, the sales associates also had significant ongoing responsibilities with customers after an order was booked. They acted as a contact point with the customers, directed them to others within Verio on technical and billing issues, and served as problem solvers, all to the end of making sure that the orders were installed—and billing could begin. As Lingo explained it, she acted as the contact person if a customer encountered any problems, directing the customer to the appropriate department, such as Customer Service or Billing and Collections, for corrective action. She had constant contact with customers to ensure that their system was up and running, playing a key role in maintaining the customer's happiness, which made them more likely to pay. The testimony of Brehm and Koehl was similar, as shown by that of Brehm:
Central to the issues in this case were the compensation plans, typically called the "Sales Associate Compensation Plan," which governed the manner in which sales associates were paid by Verio. And more specifically central were the portions of the plans concerning commissions and chargebacks, which are set forth in detail here for the years 1999 to 2002.
The "1999 Sales Compensation Plan" contained a section entitled "Monthly Revenue Commissions" (section 2.6) that explained the calculation of commissions due sales associates:
Pertinent to the chargebacks at issue here, section 3.6 of the 1999 plan, "Account Cancellation Charge Back," provided as follows:
The "2000 Direct Sales Compensation Plan" provided, in section 2.5 on "Commissions," that if [a sales associate] met 50% of his or her quota, the commission would be between 50% and 100% of the Monthly Recurring Revenue, defined in section 2.2 as "the amount agreed to be paid by the customer per month for the particular service desired . . . ." It further provided, as to
The plan provided in section 3.6,
The record contains two different compensation plans for 2001.3 In the "2001 Sales Associate Compensation Plan" dated January 1, 2001, section 3.5 on "Commissions" provided: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
...that year ineligible for bonus if not still employed on later date when bonuses were distributed]; Koehl v. Verio, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1329-1337, 48 Cal. Rptr.3d 749 [employer may charge back sums advanced on sales commissions, which are not deemed earned until all conditions ......
-
Sciborski v. Pacific Bell Directory
...(See Reid v. Overland Machined Products (1961) 55 Cal.2d 203, 207–208, 10 Cal.Rptr. 819, 359 P.2d 251; Koehl v. Verio, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1329, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 749 ( Koehl ); Hudgins v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1118, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 46 ( Hudgins ).)......
-
Sonic–calabasas a Inc. v. Moreno
...court should not address an unconscionability claim that has not been litigated in the trial court. ( Koehl v. Verio, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1338–1339, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 749; Olinick v. BMG Entertainment (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1293, fn. 7, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 268.) Given these auth......
-
Davis v. Farmers Ins. Exch.
...is an agreement in place to do so. (Agnew v. Cameron, supra, 247 Cal.App.2d at p. 622, 55 Cal.Rptr. 733 ; Koehl v. Verio, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1330, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 749.) Farmers does not direct us to any agreement permitting it to recover the advances it withheld from appellant......