Legal Opinion
City of Sacramento v. Public Employees Retirement System
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 7, 1991No. C006855PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DAVIS, J.
Introduction
This appeal presents the novel issue of whether the extra one-half hour overtime “premium” pay required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 United States Code sections 201-219, is the equivalent of “overtime” under the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL), Government Code section 20025.2, which is defined as payment for service performed “in excess of the hours of work considered normal for employees on a full-time basis . . ." Under the state retirement system, participating employers are required to make contributions based upon a percentage of…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Armour & Co. v. WantockSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Free v. BlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- National Labor Relations Board v. Amax Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- City of Oakland v. Public Employees' Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Kreeft v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Claypool v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- City of Pleasanton v. Board of Administration of Public Employees' Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Bernard v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.