• 01
  • July
    2011

When people do more work than what is required of them, it is often with the expectation that they will receive additional benefits. For some employees, those benefits include overtime pay; while other employees focus on the opportunity to move up in their careers.

Regardless of an individual's personal reasons for working overtime, under California law, most employees who work extra are eligible for the state's strict overtime pay.

Oracle, a California-based company, recently received input from the Supreme Court after they refused to compensate their employees appropriately.

Oracle claimed that because some of their employees spent a great deal of time doing work outside of California, that they should not be paid according to California's strict overtime policy. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against that. The justices were empathic that the overtime laws were designed to protect workers and guard them "against the evils of overwork."

In addition to the problem facing each individual work, the justices also stressed another, more global, reason for insisting on paying California workers California wages. "Not to apply California law would also encourage employers to substitute lower paid temporary employees from other states for California employees, thus threatening California's legitimate interest in expanding the job market."

The legal battle has been in the works for more than a decade. The debate originated when three workers spent between 10 and 15 hours each day training clients on the use of Oracle's software. At that point, Oracle refused to pay them overtime, claiming they were classified as teachers, and therefore exempt from overtime status. Thankfully, the Supreme Court sided with the employees throughout the case.

Source: Mercury News, "California Supreme Court rules against Oracle in overtime spat," Howard Mintz, 30 June 2011