Overtime Legal News Articles & Interviews

Oakland, CA The District Court for the Northern District of California has approved a settlement in a class action California unpaid wages lawsuit. In the lawsuit, Bisaccia v. Revel Systems, a group of inside sales representatives claim that Revel Systems, Inc. (Revel) failed to pay overtime wages as required under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Under the terms of the settlement, a group of 149 plaintiffs will share a total of $2.75 million.

All in a day’s work

Revel sells a cloud-based Point of Sale (POS) system. Restaurants, retail stores and other enterprises throughout the world use it because, in part, it integrates with Apple’s iPad. The POS system tracks sales, inventory and includes payroll and customer relationship management features.


Joseph Bisaccia worked for Revel as a Sales Executive out of Revel’s office in Tempe, Arizona where he cold-called potential buyers. Revel also provided him with leads to follow in an effort to make sales. Revel employs many inside sales representatives to work in a similar capacity.

High pressure sales quotas, no overtime

Between 2014 and 2017, Bisaccia and other sales reps claim that they were pressured to meet ambitious monthly sales goals that could not be achieved within the limits of a 40-hour workweek. He worked, on average, two to six hours of overtime every week. In addition, he and other plaintiffs typically worked overtime hours on weekends, either from Revel’s office or from home, where they took and made calls to potential customers. It was nonstop hustle.


Revel routinely provided meals to inside sales representatives so that they could work through lunch breaks. In addition, the company required inside salespersons to work overtime during the last week of each month in order to meet the company’s sales quotas. For example, during the workweek ending on October 30, 2016, Bisaccia estimated that he worked 55 hours. He was, however, not compensated for any of the overtime hours he worked in that week or in any previous workweek.


Instead, Revel misrepresented to the sales representatives that they were exempt from minimum wage and overtime protections under FLSA. Rather than pay Bisaccia and other inside salespersons one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, Revel paid only the regular hourly rate. During the period of time in question, the company kept no records of actual hours worked.

Are inside sales employees protected by overtime laws?

As a general principle, the FLSA requires employers to pay an overtime premium of one and a half times the employee’s regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a workweek and to also pay at least the minimum wage for all hours worked. However, the law also establishes certain exceptions to these requirements. The workers not protected by overtime laws are referred to as ”exempt.”


The legal issue in many overtime lawsuits is whether a job fits within one of those exceptions. If not, then an employer must comply with the FLSA minimum wage and overtime requirements. Commissioned sales employees seem to present a particular puzzle to employers.


Inside salespeople are those who do not leave the office to make sales. These are the workers who try to make sales over the telephone, internet or by mail. They know the “click” of the dreaded auto dialer. They are generally covered by overtime protections.


Outside salespeople customarily work away from the employer’s place of business. They have more control over their time and conditions of employment and are usually not entitled to earn overtime.


Whether a worker is an inside or an outside salesperson depends on the job duties performed, rather than a particular title. A common mistake many employers make is to treat all commissioned salespeople as exempt employees. It may be a particularly tempting to do so because not having to pay overtime may save an employer on payroll.

Why is the overtime settlement important?

This is not one of those situations that makes new law. Although the determination of whether an employee works in an inside sales capacity or an outside sales capacity can be very fact-specific, the law is not new or unclear. Nonetheless, violations of this provision of the FLSA remain quite common.


Commissioned salespeople who usually work from their employer’s place of business and do the hard work of cold-calling and following employer-provided leads to sell the employer’s goods or services are likely entitled to be paid overtime for hours beyond a 40-hour workweek. The settlement in Bisaccia is a reminder of this basic rule.

Los Angeles, CA It is clear that workers who show up for a shift but are then told to go home because there is not enough work are entitled to wages under California law. The decision in Ward v. Tilly’s, a recent California unpaid wages lawsuit takes it a step further. If you have to call before your scheduled shift is to begin to find out if you really should go in, then you are entitled to wages for a portion of your shift, even if the answer is “no.”

Oakland, CA: A Northern California owner and operator of two horse training facilities--Portola Valley Training Center in Menlo Park and Gilroy Gaits in Hollister, doing business as EWC & Associates Inc.—has been reigned in by federal court and ordered to pay $1,270,683 to 30 employees for several work visa program violations and California labor law violations.

Los Angeles, CA Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl has approved Jamba Juice’s offer to settle a class action California unpaid wages lawsuit for $1.95 million. The plaintiffs in Arteaga v. Jamba Juice claimed that the smoothie chain forced nearly 5,500 employees to work off the clock – through meal breaks and without proper overtime pay.

Santa Clara, CA: From strippers to cooks to construction workers, independent contractors who say they are misclassified under California labor laws may want to take into consideration what they stand to lose before filing a misclassification lawsuit to be classified as an employee. Sure, the benefits are enticing but they come at a price, such as loss of independence

Los Angeles, CA The California Labor Commissioner awarded 24 truck port drivers a total of $6 million for unpaid wages and benefits. The underpayment arose from NFI/California Cartage Express’s practice of intentionally misclassifying the drivers as independent contractors, rather than as employees. Since the 2018 California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, many California unpaid wage lawsuits that deal with misclassification problem have gone for workers. Dynamex is under legal assault, however, particularly in the trucking industry.

San Diego, CA: The Labor Commissioner’s Office is cracking down on California’s underground economy. Daniel Yu, Assistant Chief with the Bureau of Field Enforcement is charged with making sure employers comply with California labor laws, and that every worker, including illegals, is entitled to full protection.

Santa Clara, CA In late 2018, R. Ross and C. Rogus filed a class action California unpaid wages lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE) that describes a pattern of gender-based pay discrimination. It’s hardly news, you think, that tech giants underpay women.

Sacramento, CA: Can an individual be held liable for alleged California wage law violations?

San Diego, CA A year and a half ago, Sylvester Owino and Jonathan Gomez filed a California unpaid wages lawsuit against CoreCivic, a for-profit business that runs private prisons, including the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal human trafficking laws and California labor laws relating to minimum wage, overtime, and meal breaks, among other things. Discovery is expected to continue into March 2019, with a trial to follow.