Legal Opinion
Areso v. CarMax, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 20, 2011No. B219981PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
JOHNSON, J.
Leena Areso appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication in favor of CarMax, Inc. (CarMax), in her class action lawsuit, which (among other causes of action) alleged violations of the Labor Code, including a failure to pay compensation for overtime. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Areso began working for CarMax on June 23, 2004, as a sales consultant trainee, and until July 18, 2004, she was classified as an hourly employee and was eligible for overtime pay.1 On July 19, 2004, CarMax promoted Areso to sales consultant, with the primary job of selling CarMax’s used…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Martinez v. CombsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water CompanyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Gentry v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- People v. KnollerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Alonzo v. Maximus, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2011
- Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- People v. ValenciaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- City of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles Employee Relations BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2012
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.