Slater v. Dunham

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that 7 courts ordinarily interpret California statutes apply “to conduct occurring anywhere within 8 California’s borders”
• rejecting federal rule for calculating the overtime rate of pay in a California overtime claim
• finding, like the Court in Aubry , that the FLSA does not preempt California wage law with respect to seamen working on transport vessels to off-shore oil platforms
• “[I]f an employee resides in California, receives pay in California, and works exclusively, or principally, in California, then that employee is a “wage earner of California’ and presumptively enjoys the protection of IWC regulations.”
• “If an issue is important, then presumably it will come before the agency either in an adjudication or in a request for advice. By publicizing a summary of its decisions and advice letters, the agency can provide some guidance to the public, as well as agency staff...”
• “When an employer directs, commands or restrains an employee from leaving the work place during his or her lunch hour and thus prevents the employee from using the time effectively for his or her own purposes, that employee remains subject to the employer’s control.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).