Legal Opinion

Adams v. Pacific Bell Directory

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 11, 2003No. G029343PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RYLAARSDAM, Acting P. J.

Plaintiffs, 42 employees and former employees of defendant Pacific Bell Directory (employer), sued the latter, claiming its practice of debiting employees’ commissions is unlawful under Labor Code section 221 arid Business and Professions Code section 17200, although it is expressly permitted under a collective bargaining agreement between the parties. The case has been a procedural merry-go-round, if not a procedural roller coaster, for employees. Or perhaps a more appropriate metaphor is to characterize their experiences in pursuing this case as a procedural…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. DiGenova v. State Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. People v. ShueyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Rescue Army v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Citizens for Open Access to Sand and Tide, Inc. v. Seadrift Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  5. Clemente v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Bell v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  2. State Farm General Insurance v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. The People v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. People v. DixonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. Sciborski v. Pacific Bell DirectoryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API