Legal Opinion
Vranish v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 22, 2014No. B243443PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ASHMANN-GERST, J.
Labor Code section 514 1 provides, in relevant part: “Sections 510 and 511 do not apply to an employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of the employees, and if the agreement provides premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and a regular hourly rate of pay for those employees of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage.”
Plaintiffs George Vranish, Jr., and Steve Teague are employees of defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon). They are…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- People v. CoronadoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- David Valles John Breslin, and Members of the General Public Similarly Situated v. Ivy Hill CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Sangster v. PaetkauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Carl Curtis v. Irwin Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial HospitalDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2014
- Araquistain v. Pacific Gas & Electric CompanyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- George Huerta v. Csi Elec. Contractors, IncCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2022
- Carlos Marquez v. Toll Global Forwarding USACourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.