Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 4/25/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HECTOR ALVARADO, ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) DART CONTAINER CORPORATION ) OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) Defendant and Respondent. ) ____________________________________) S232607 Ct.App. 4/2 E061645 Riverside County Super. Ct. No. RIC1211707 ORDER MODIFYING OPINION THE COURT: The opinion in this matter filed on March 5, 2018, and appearing in the California Official Reports at 4 Cal.5th 542, is modified as follows: 1. On page 551 of the published opinion, a footnote is inserted at the end of the sentence that reads: “Plaintiff’s formula turns out to be marginally more favorable to employees; the key distinction between the two formulas is whether the bonus is allocated to all hours worked, or only to the nonovertime hours worked.” The new footnote, which is numbered as footnote 2, reads: “Defendant’s formula and plaintiff’s formula have one thing in common: both use the pay period as the basis for calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay. In other words, neither party suggests that regular rate of pay should be calculated on a workweek basis, which might result in an employee having two or more regular rates of pay in a single pay period. This opinion follows the lead of the parties in using the pay period as the basis for calculating regular rate of pay, but we did not grant review to decide whether, under California law, regular rate of pay is properly calculated on a pay-period basis or a workweek basis, and nothing in this opinion should be interpreted as deciding that question.” 2. On pages 551, 553, 555, 561, 564–565, 567, 570, and 572 of the published opinion, current footnotes 2 through 12 are renumbered as footnotes 3 through 13. This modification does not affect the judgment. The request for clarification and/or modification of the opinion, filed by amicus curiae California Employment Law Council on March 22, 2018, is denied. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
