Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

• Decision Date: 14 July 2014
• Docket Number: No. S204804.,S204804.
• Citation: 59 Cal.4th 662,328 P.3d 1028,174 Cal.Rptr.3d 287
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: Susan J. PEABODY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

59 Cal.4th 662

328 P.3d 1028

174 Cal.Rptr.3d 287

Susan J. PEABODY, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

No. S204804.

Supreme Court of California

July 14, 2014.

Van Vleck Turner & Zaller and Brian F. Van Vleck, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Alexander Krakow + Glick and Michael Morrison, Eureka, for California Employment Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Wargo & French, J. Scott Carr, San Francisco, and Joseph W. Ozmer II, for Defendant and Respondent.

CORRIGAN, J.

Susan Peabody worked for Time Warner Cable, Inc. (Time Warner), as a commissioned salesperson. She received biweekly paychecks, which included hourly wages in every pay period and commission wages approximately every other pay period. After Peabody stopped working for Time Warner, she sued, alleging various wage and hour violations. Time Warner removed the matter to federal court and successfully moved for summary judgment. Peabody appealed.

At the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ( Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (9th Cir.2012) 689 F.3d 1134 (Peabody ); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.548 ), we consider whether an employer may attribute commission wages paid in one pay period to other pay periods in order to satisfy California's compensation requirements.¹ We conclude the answer is no.

I. BACKGROUND

From July 2008 to May 15, 2009, Peabody was a Time Warner account executive selling advertising on the company's cable television channels. Every other week, Time Warner paid $769.23 in hourly wages, the equivalent of $9.61 per hour, assuming a 40–hour workweek. About every other pay period, Time Warner paid commission wages under its account executive compensation plan.

In her class action suit, Peabody alleged: (1) she regularly worked 45 or more hours per week, but was never paid overtime wages; (2) she occasionally worked more than 48 hours per week, earning less than the minimum wage in those weeks when she was paid only hourly wages; and (3) due to Time Warner's implementation of a new compensation plan in March 2009, she was not paid all of the commission wages owed on her January and February 2009 sales. She also sought statutory penalties for the late payment of wages and for itemized wage statement violations.²

Time Warner removed the matter to federal court and sought summary judgment. Concerning commission wages, it noted that, under all versions of its compensation plan, an "account executive earned a commission only upon the occurrence of three events: (1) procurement of the order; (2) broadcast of the advertising; and (3) collection of the revenue from the client." Commissions for January and February 2009 sales were neither earned nor owed until additional conditions were satisfied, which did not occur until after adoption of the March 2009 compensation plan. Thus, the commissions were correctly paid in accordance with the operative plan.

As to overtime, Time Warner did not dispute that Peabody regularly worked 45 hours per week and was paid no overtime. It argued that she fell within California's "commissioned employee" exemption and thus was not entitled to overtime compensation. ( Cal.Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040, subd. 3(D).) The exemption requires, among other things, that an employee's "earnings exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) times the minimum wage" (ibid. ), i.e., $12 per hour. Time Warner acknowledged that most of Peabody's paychecks included only hourly wages and were for less than that amount. It argued, however, that commissions should be reassigned from the biweekly pay periods in which they were paid to earlier pay periods. It reasoned that the commissions should be attributed to the "monthly pay period for which they were earned." (Italics added.) Attributing the commission wages in this manner would satisfy the exemption's minimum earnings prong.

As to minimum wages, Time Warner argued that attributing commission wages in this way would necessarily mean Peabody's compensation also was, at all times, higher than the applicable minimum wage.

The district court granted summary judgment. First, it determined that the January and February 2009 commissions were not earned, and thus not owed, until after adoption of the new compensation plan. Second, it concluded that Time Warner could attribute commission wages paid in one biweekly pay period to other pay periods for the purpose of satisfying California's compensation requirements. In light of this conclusion, the court rejected Peabody's overtime and minimum wage claims, as well as her other claims.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed as to the commission wages claim. ( Peabody, supra, 689 F.3d at p. 1135, fn. 1.) It determined, however, that underlying the remaining issues was the "question of whether Peabody's commissions can be allocated over the course of a month, or whether the commissions must only be counted toward the pay period in which the commissions were paid." ( Id. at p. 1135.) Finding no clear controlling precedent in California case law, the Ninth Circuit asked this court to answer that question. (Ibid. )

II. DISCUSSION

We apply settled principles when construing statutes and begin with the text. If it "is clear and unambiguous our inquiry ends." ( Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1103, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 880, 155 P.3d 284 (Murphy ).) "[S]tatutes governing conditions of employment are to be construed broadly in favor of protecting employees." (Ibid.; see Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1026–1027, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 315, 273 P.3d 513 (Brinker ).) To that end, we narrowly construe exemptions against the employer, "and their application is limited to those employees plainly and unmistakably within their terms." ( Nordquist v. McGraw–Hill Broadcasting Co. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 555, 562, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 221 ; see Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785, 794–795, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 844, 978 P.2d 2.) We employ these same principles to wage orders promulgated by the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC).³ ( Brinker, at p. 1027, 139 Cal.Rptr.3d 315, 273 P.3d 513.)

Under section 510, subdivision (a), employees who "work in excess of eight hours in one workday [or] ... in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek ... shall be" paid overtime compensation. (See Wage Order No. 4, subd. 3(A) [same].) Employers must compensate such employees "at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the [employee's] regular rate of pay." ( § 510, subd. (a) ; see Wage Order No. 4, subd. 3(A) [same].) The commissioned employee exemption, however, provides that the overtime provisions "shall not apply to any employee whose earnings exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) times the minimum wage if more than half of that employee's compensation represents commissions." (Wage Order No. 4, subd. 3(D).)

Time Warner contends Peabody is an exempt commissioned employee. In response, Peabody focuses on the exemption's minimum earnings prong, i.e., whether her earnings exceeded $12 per hour, or "one and one-half ... times the minimum wage."⁴ (Wage Order No. 4, subd. 3(D).) It is undisputed that the majority of her paychecks were for less than that amount. Thus, the only way the prong could be satisfied is if commission wages paid in one biweekly pay period can be attributed to other pay periods. In arguing that they may, Time Warner primarily contends that, although it issued Peabody a paycheck every two weeks, (1) it permissibly used a monthly pay period when paying commission wages, and (2) in order to determine earnings for purposes of the exemption, commission wages should be attributed not to the pay periods in which they were paid, but instead to the weeks of the monthly period in which they were earned. Time Warner fails to persuade.

Its first contention need not detain us long. Section 204, subdivision (a) ( section 204(a) ) provides, "[a]ll wages ... earned by any person in any employment are due and payable twice during each calendar month...." Wages include "all amounts for labor performed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculation." (§ 200, subd. (a), italics added.) In other words, all earned wages, including commissions, must be paid no less frequently than semimonthly. Limited exceptions do exist, demonstrating that the Legislature knows how to establish a different payroll period when it wishes to do so. ( §§ 204(a) [certain executive, administrative, and professional employees], 204.1 [commissioned car salespersons]; see Murphy, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1107, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 880, 155 P.3d 284.)

Time Warner notes the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) has observed that "[c]ommission programs which calculate the amount owed once a month (or less often) are common."⁵ (DLSE Opn. Letter No. 2002.12.09–2 (2002) p. 2, italics added.) This statement, however, does not connote approval of monthly pay periods. It merely acknowledges that (1) commissions are not earned or owed until agreed-upon conditions have been satisfied, and (2) such satisfaction often may occur on a monthly or less frequent basis. For example, as in this case, an employment agreement may require receipt of a client's payment before any commissions on sold advertising are earned. If a client routinely pays its bills on the 15th of each month, commissions will be earned and owed once a month. Yet this does not create a monthly pay period in contravention of section 204(a). To summarize, section 204 establishes semimonthly pay periods, but there is no obligation to pay unearned commission wages in any pay period. Commissions are owed only when they have been earned, even if it is on a monthly, quarterly, or less frequent basis.

We next consider Time Warner's contention that commission wages paid in one biweekly pay period may...