Two individual Plaintiffs worked as outside sales employees. Plaintiffs alleged that they were not paid their final commission wages. Plaintiffs’ commission agreement contained a clause that they would only be paid commissions when the Defendant collected payment on the sales generated by Plaintiffs. Their commission agreement also contained a clause that they would only be paid commissions during their employment. Plaintiffs allege that they were entitled to commissions for sales generated during their last month of employment, even though Defendant did not collect payment until after their termination of employment. Plaintiffs alleged that the clause in the commission agreement was an unlawful forfeiture of post-termination commission wages in violation of California Civil Code §1442.
Plaintiffs also alleged that they were entitled to business expenses. They were both required to drive their personal vehicles and utilize their cell phones to carry out their duties as outside sales employees. One Plaintiff was not provided with any reimbursement for his business expenses. The other Plaintiff was provided with a car allowance, but alleged that the car allowance did not fully compensate him for all of the miles that he drove for the Defendant as required by the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 554. Plaintiffs also sought penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 203 for late payment of each of their commission wages that they earned during their employment and pursuant to Labor Code section 226 for wage statement violations.
To protect confidentiality, the names of the parties and case number are not being disclosed.