Supreme Court of California

A court of appeals decision reversing a trial judgment for Ralphs supermarket chain in a wage case is reversed as an incentive compensation plan implemented by Ralphs was not illegal under California law simply because ordinary business and store expenses were figured in to determine the store's profit, upon which the supplementary incentive compensation payments were calculated. By doing so, Ralphs did not illegally shift those costs to employees.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/23/2007
• Published 08/23/2007

Judges

• BAXTER, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Kumetz & Glick, Law Offices of Stephen Glick, Fred Kumetz, Stephen Glick, Los Angeles;  Law Offices of Ian Herzog, Ian Herzog, Santa Monica;  Daniels, Fine, Israel & Schonbuch, Paul R. Fine, Scott A. Brooks and Craig S. Momita, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant., Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, Laura L. Ho, Oakland, and Nina Ravin, for Asian Law Caucus, Inc., Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Golden Gate Women's Employment Rights Clinic, La Raza Centro Legal, Inc., The Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center and Stanford Community Law Clinic as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant., Evan D. Marshall, for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Thelen Reid & Priest, Thomas E. Hill, Los Angeles, Robert Spagat, San Francisco;  Horvitz & Levy, Barry R. Levy and Daniel J. Gonzalez, Encino, for Defendant and Respondent., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Deborah J. Clarke, Elisabeth C. Watson, Los Angeles, and Lisa A Barr, for Employers Group and California Employment Law Council as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent., Littler Medelson, J. Kevin Lilly, Diane Kimberlin and James E. Hart, Irvine, for California Grocers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.