California Supreme Court's Recent Overtime Ruling Likely to Cause Payroll Problems

by FordHarrison
Contact

FordHarrison

Executive Summary: On March 5, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling clarifying how employers must handle flat-sum bonuses (i.e., additional compensation that does not change depending on the number of hours worked by an employee) in the calculation of overtime. Under this ruling, an employer must calculate a non-exempt employee’s additional overtime by dividing the amount of the flat-sum bonus by the actual number of non-overtime hours worked by the employee; then multiplying that per-hour value by 1.5 (or 2, depending on the applicable multiplier to use) and by the number of overtime hours worked. The ruling clarifies an important technical aspect of overtime calculations and upends many employers’ previous understanding of what the law requires. Although this decision is limited to flat-sum bonuses and does not apply to other forms of non-hourly compensation, employers should promptly have their incentive/bonus compensation plans reviewed for compliance.

Discussion

On March 5, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued Alvarado v. Dart Container Corporation of Cal., S232607 (Mar. 5, 2018), addressing how employers must incorporate flat-sum bonuses (i.e., additional compensation that does not change depending on the number of hours worked by an employee) in the calculation of overtime. The decision is expected to upend many companies’ overtime calculation practices, as well as impact how and whether employers offer incentive and/or bonus compensation to their employees.

Background and Facts of Case

California, like federal law, requires employers to pay non-exempt employees overtime. Like federal law, California law requires overtime to be based on the employee’s “regular rate of pay.” “Regular rate of pay” is a term of art and is not the same as the employee’s normal hourly wage rate. Rather, it is intended to reflect an employee’s total compensation and includes adjustments to the normal hourly rate to reflect additional compensation the employee has earned, with limited exceptions.

For decades, many employers operating in California operated on the understanding that California followed the federal standards in calculating the “regular rate of pay” for flat-sum bonuses. Generally, this would permit an employer to calculate an employee’s “regular rate of pay” by dividing the employee’s total compensation for the week (not including any overtime premiums, which is what the “regular rate of pay” would impact) by that employee’s total hours worked for that same week. Generally, to determine total overtime pay, the “regular rate of pay” would then be then be divided in half (to obtain the per-hour overtime premium rate) and multiplied by the total number of overtime hours (to obtain the total overtime premium wages). The total overtime premium wages would then be combined with the total overtime base compensation (the total number of overtime hours multiplied by the employee’s normal hourly rate) to obtain the total overtime wages owed.

The employer in Alvarado used the same formula—already adopted under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act—in calculating its hourly employees’ overtime compensation. In that case, in addition to paying its employees on an hourly basis, the employer also offered “attendance bonuses”—fixed sums of money for each Saturday or Saturday the employee worked. Hector Alvarado, one of Dart Container Corp.’s former employees, challenged his employer’s formula as being in conflict with state standards. Alvarado argued that, conceptually, the flat-sum bonus should be viewed as applying to only his regular, non-overtime hours and that it should not be viewed as compensation for his overtime hours. Thus, Alvarado argued that the overtime value of the flat-sum bonus should be calculated by dividing the bonus amount by only his non-overtime hours, as opposed to his total hours, and that the resulting “regular rate” be multiplied by 1.5. This amount would then be combined with the overtime value of the regular wages (the total number of overtime hours multiplied by the employee’s normal hourly rate multiplied by 1.5) to obtain the total overtime wages owed.

Ultimately, the California Supreme Court ruled in Alvarado’s favor. In so ruling, the Court reasoned that because the form of compensation involved a fixed-value amount that had no direct relevance to the actual number of hours worked, the amount could not be seen as compensation for any overtime hours worked. The Court then held that, as a result, the per-hour overtime value of the bonus could only be calculated by dividing the bonus by the actual number of non-overtime hours worked by the employee, as opposed to the total number of total hours worked.

What Does This Mean?

This ruling will likely cause confusion concerning how overtime should be calculated in California. In practical terms, it impacts two separate portions of how overtime is calculated, both of which are beneficial and can offer more overtime compensation to the employee. First, it impacts the divisor that must be used when calculating the “regular rate of pay,” requiring the divisor to equal the actual number of non-overtime hours. Second, it impacts the multiplier utilized to determine the overtime pay rate, requiring the use of a 1.5 multiplier (as opposed to a .5 multiplier). Note: The multiplier may be different in cases where an employee has worked sufficient overtime to qualify for a larger multiplier under California law. Below is an illustration explaining the differences between the federal law (which still may be applied to non-hourly compensation methods that are not considered flat-sum bonuses) and the new standards (applying to flat-sum bonuses).

Suppose a company hired an hourly part-time employee whose normal hourly rate is $10/hour but could receive a $100 flat-sum bonus for each day worked on a weekend. The employee typically works 3 days during the week, 8 hours a day, but in one particular week, the employee worked one of his scheduled days on a Saturday and worked 1 hour of overtime (California law, unlike federal law, requires daily overtime compensation, as well as weekly overtime). Hence, the employee worked a total of 25 hours (1 hour of overtime) and earned a $100 bonus for working on Saturday

Federal Standards

Under existing federal regulations, the employer calculates overtime by taking the total compensation earned and dividing by the total hours worked for that workweek to get the “regular rate of pay.” The additional overtime pay is calculated by multiplying half of the regular rate by the overtime hours worked. Thus:

($240 (regular pay) + $10 (base component of overtime) + $100 bonus) / 25 total hours worked = $14 regular rate

Additional overtime premium = $14 x 0.5 x 1 overtime hour worked = $7

Total overtime = $10 (base rate) + $7 = $17

Total Compensation

$240 regular wages (24 hours x $10)

$17 overtime wages

$100 bonus

$357 total pay

California’s New Regular Rate Standard for Flat-Sum Bonuses

Under the new decision, California requires an employer to calculate a non-exempt employee’s additional overtime by dividing the amount of the flat-sum bonus by the actual number of non-overtime hours worked by the employee, then multiplying that result by 1.5 (to determine a per-hour value) and by the number of overtime hours worked (to determine total overtime wages owed). This additional overtime is then added to the overtime compensation attributable to the employee’s hourly wages (calculated by multiplying the employee’s normal hourly rate by 1.5 and then by the number of overtime hours). Thus:

($100 bonus) / 24 actual non-overtime hours worked = $4.17

Overtime from Bonus = $4.17 x 1.5 x 1 overtime hour worked = $6.26

Overtime from Hourly Wages = $10 x 1.5 x 1 overtime hour worked = $15

Total Overtime = $21.26

Total Compensation

$240 regular wages (24 hours x $10)

$21.26 overtime wages

$100 bonus

$361.26 total pay

Bottom Line: The ruling is expected to have a wide-ranging impact on how overtime is calculated in California. Further, and although the decision is limited to flat-sum bonuses, the decision may also call into question what is considered a flat-sum bonus. As a result, it is highly recommended that employers offering incentive/bonus compensation plans to their hourly employees in California have their plans reviewed.

Written by:

FordHarrison
Contact
more
less

FordHarrison on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.