California Learned Professional Exemption receives further Attention and Clarification
.jpg)
California Ninth Circuit's courts have issued another recent decision regarding the California Learned Professional Exemption. The appellate court establish a law clerk as exempt from state and federal overtime. This law clerk graduated from law school but had not passed the California Bar Exam. Zelasko-Barrett v. Brayton-Purcell, LLP, 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1080 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Aug. 17, 2011).
On June 15, 2011, the Ninth Circuit revisited the California Learned Professional Exemption when it determined Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 9th Cir., No. 09-16370, 6/15/11. See blog entry, "Licensed or Unlicensed? Exempt from Overtime or Not?”
Generally in past cases, the use of the Learned Professional Exemption has typically revolved around employment positions, such as engineering or more recently accounting. More recently, on August 17, 2011, the First Appellate District reviewed and denied the dispute to the use of the California Labor Code’s Learned Professional Exemption in the legal industry. Zelasko-Barrett v. Brayton-Purcell, LLP, 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1080 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Aug. 17, 2011).
In Zelasko, Brayton-Purcell, LLP hired law students and law graduates who had not yet passed the bar exam as “Law Clerk I” and “Law Clerk II”, respectively. The plaintiff had the Law Clerk II position before to his entrance to the bar for roughly 2 years, then was promoted to Associate Attorney. The Marin County Superior Court found that the plaintiff was correctly classified as exempt when he held the position of Law Clerk II.
The court held:
“Federal regulations after which [the California learned professional exemption] was explicitly patterned . . . condition the learned professions exemption under federal law upon completion of an advanced course of education, not upon licensure,”
Ultimately the court ruled that possession of the degree, along with Defendant’s undisputed evidence that a Law Clerk II was required to perform all the same duties as a junior attorney, satisfied the exemption’s requirements.
The Zelasko case may not have been a success for the plaintiff and certainly lends doubt to how similar proceedings will fair. But since there are still California courts now applying the principals set forth in the Ninth Circuit's decision in Campbell v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP, it is likely employers will take a second look at how they classify their employees.
If you have been classified as a salary or exempt employee it can never hurt to have a California Employment Attorney examine your job duties to be certain you have been classified properly. If you haven’t been paid properly you are likely owed a substantial amount in overtime and possibly even meal and rest break violation.
If you have any questions about this article or our blog, feel free to call us at:
Long Beach – (562) 256-1047
Los Angeles – (213) 261-0229
San Francisco – (415) 200-0012 or (415) 230-2755
San Diego – (619) 342-1242 or (619) 272-2193
