Sullivan v. Oracle Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that California's overtime laws apply to certain work performed in California by out of state employees
• holding that California overtime 26 laws applied to “full days and weeks of work performed [in California] by nonresidents”
• holding that nonresident employees of a California company who worked primarily in their home states, but who also worked in California “for entire days or weeks” at a time, were entitled to Labor Code protections
• holding California’s overtime provisions apply to day-long work performed in California for a California employer by an out-of-state resident
• regarding “only a single instance of relevant conduct occurring in California”—that the challenged decision-making occurred primarily from headquarters in California
• “Neither the language of the UCL nor its legislative history provides any basis for concluding the Legislature intended the UCL to operate extraterritorially.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).