Last week, a California appeals court ruled that a former law clerk who had graduated from law school but not yet passed the bar, was exempt from overtime pay as a professional employee. The former law clerk, Matthew Zalesko-Barrett, sued Brayton Purcell LLP alleging that the law firm denied him overtime, waiting time penalties, and rest and meal breaks from August 2007 through June 2009. Zalesko-Barrett did not contest that he was an exempt employee following his admission the state bar.
California’s Labor Law defines a professional employee as any individual “who is licensed or certified by the State of California and is primarily engaged in the practice of one of the following recognized professions: law, medicine, dentistry, optometry, architecture, engineering, teaching, or accounting.” An individual can also qualify as a professional employee if he or she performs work requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study.
Zalesko-Barrett admitted that as a law clerk he performed the duties generally required of an attorney such as a drafting pleadings, conducting legal research, and interviewing witnesses. However, Zalesko-Barrett claimed that he was not exempt because the law specifically requires professional employee to be “licensed or certified by the State of California.” There was no dispute that Zalesko-Barrett did not hold any such license while serving as a law clerk.
The appeals court rejected Zalesko-Barrett’s argument and held that the professional exemption applied to a law school graduate who was not yet licensed to practice law. The court held that even though Zalesko-Barrett did not hold a license or certification, he performed work requiring a prolonged course of intellectual study.
The decision by the appeals court is interesting in that it disregarded the license/certification requirement under California law, and instead focused on traditional professional employee requirements set forth under federal law. The decision may also be an indication the law is expanding to recognize/include certain employees as exempt even if they have not met every requirement under a particular regulation.