California Supreme Court to rule on claims adjuster overtime exemption
Next month, the California Supreme Court will determine whether compensation claims adjusters are entitled to overtime pay. The battle over whether or not they are exempt from state and federal provisions has lasted for several years.
Business Insurance explains that California's Industrial Welfare Commission requires employees to be paid overtime when they work more than eight hours per day or 40 hours per week. Those whose jobs are administrative, executive or professional in nature are exempt - a category claims adjuster Francis Harris argues does not pertain to him or his colleagues.
In 2007, an appellate court overturned the decision of a trial court to rule in Harris' favor, deciding that the class of adjusters who filed suit against Liberty Mutual and Golden Eagle Insurance should not be exempted from the employee attendance laws.
The outcome of the Harris case will have ramifications for a similar class action lawsuit filed in 2001 against Cambridge Integrated Services Group, the news source notes. In February, the California Court of Appeal ruled against the plaintiffs, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Business Insurance explains that California's Industrial Welfare Commission requires employees to be paid overtime when they work more than eight hours per day or 40 hours per week. Those whose jobs are administrative, executive or professional in nature are exempt - a category claims adjuster Francis Harris argues does not pertain to him or his colleagues.
In 2007, an appellate court overturned the decision of a trial court to rule in Harris' favor, deciding that the class of adjusters who filed suit against Liberty Mutual and Golden Eagle Insurance should not be exempted from the employee attendance laws.
The outcome of the Harris case will have ramifications for a similar class action lawsuit filed in 2001 against Cambridge Integrated Services Group, the news source notes. In February, the California Court of Appeal ruled against the plaintiffs, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
All data and information provided on this news blog is for informational purposes only. Infinisource makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. Information regarding employment suits and other legal action is not updated after publication, and may not be current.