Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE-LAW CLAIMS—N.D. Cal.: Equal pay claim of bank employee fails, overtime claim moves forward, (Oct 15, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The FDIC did not proffer any evidence indicating that the employee spent more than 50 percent of her work time engaged in duties that might qualify her as an exempt employee.

The FDIC was entitled to summary judgment against an employee’s claim under California Equal Pay Act, ruled a federal district court in California. The employee adduced no evidence from which a reasonable jury could concluded that male employees were paid more than she was for substantially similar work. Additionally, the FDIC was granted summary judgment against the employee’s claims for waiting time penalties and meal and rest periods. However, the employee’s claim for unpaid overtime under the California Labor Code survived the motion. The FDIC did not adduce evidence establishing that the plaintiff primarily engaged in exempt activities (Slater v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., No. 23-cv-03703-JD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2025)).

The employee worked as a bank manager for First Republic National Bank until 2018. She sued the bank on several California state employment claims. In 2023, the FDIC was appointed receiver for the bank and removed the original state-law case to federal court. The FDIC asked for summary judgment across the board on the employee’s claims.

Equal pay claim. The California Equal Pay Act makes it “unlawful for employers to pay employees of one gender less than employees of the other gender ‘for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.’” “To prove a violation of [CEPA], a plaintiff must establish that, based on gender, the employer pays different wages to employees doing substantially similar work under substantially similar conditions.” Substantially similar work means work “which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility.”

In this case, the employee had not adduced evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that male employees were paid more than she was for substantially similar work. The record indicated that her salary was on par with male employees in the same job classification, and in several cases was higher than the male employees. Consequently, she could not carry her burden of proof at trial under the CEPA, and summary judgement for the FDIC was warranted.

Unpaid overtime. The employee also alleged a claim for unpaid overtime spanning several years under California Labor Code Section 510. The FDIC contended that the employee was in charge of running a branch office, and so was exempt from the California overtime pay regulations under California Labor Code Section 515. Here, the court determined that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment.

Exemption. In California, an employee in an executive, administrative, or professional capacity is exempt from entitlement to overtime pay. The FDIC focused on the exemption of executive employees, which applies when an employee manages a department or other subdivision, regularly supervises two or more employees, has authority to hire and fire employees or make recommendations for such that are given particular weight, exercises independent judgment, and earns a monthly salary no less than two times the state minimum wage.

The key factual inquiry is whether an employee was “primarily engaged in duties that meet the test of the exemption.” “Primarily” is defined in the Labor Code to mean “more than one-half of the employee’s worktime.”

The problem for the FDIC was that it did not adduce evidence establishing that the employee was primarily engaged in exempt activities. It relied almost entirely on her job description as a “Preferred Banking Office Manager,” but did not answer the question of what the employee actually did during her workweek. The FDIC did not proffer any evidence indicating that she spent more than 50 percent of her work time engaged in duties that might qualify her as an exempt employee. Overall, the record established a genuine dispute of fact with respect to the exemption that will need to be resolved at trial.

Waiting time penalties. Summary judgment was also granted in favor of the FDIC on the employee’s claim for waiting time penalties under California Labor Code Section 203. Waiting time penalties require proof that the employer “willfully” failed to pay wages. The employee did not present any evidence that the FDIC acted willfully within the meaning of Section 203. She stated only that she believed she would be entitled to penalties if she prevailed on the overtime and other claims.

Meal and rest periods. Additionally, summary judgment was granted in favor of the FDIC on the employee’s meal and rest breaks claims under California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512. An employer need only “relieve the employee of all duty for the designated period, but need not ensure that the employee does no work.” An employee must show their employer was “exerting coercion against the taking of, creating incentives to forgo, or otherwise encouraging the skipping of legally protected breaks.”

Here, the employee did not adduce evidence that she was pressured or coerced into giving up meal and break times. She said she “skipped meal and rest breaks due to understaffing and constant customer demands,” and to avoid “needless overtime,” but nothing in these statements was evidence that she was forced in any way to forego breaks altogether. She also proffered an email from her supervisor advising her to ensure all employees at her bank branch received a 30-minute lunch break, which cut against any inference of coercion.

Unreimbursed business expenses. Similarly, summary judgment was granted in favor of the FDIC on the employee’s claim of unreimbursed business expenses under California Labor Code Section 2802. Under Section 2802(a), “an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.” The employee claimed reimbursement for her expenditures on items such as “kitchen supplies, food, candy, dog treats, fans, heaters, ladders and tool kits,” but provided no evidence that these expenses were business necessities or incurred as a consequence of her job. She also did not provide any documentation of when these purchases were made or how much she paid.

Vacation pay. The employee alleged the bank failed to pay her at termination for unused vacation time, in violation of California Labor Code Section 227.3. “California law does not require employers to provide employees with paid vacation.” But “if an employer chooses to include paid vacation as a portion of the employee’s compensation, the employer is not free to reclaim it after it has been earned.”

According to the employee, she forewent scheduled vacations to cover for sick colleagues and attend to other office demands. The FDIC was unduly vague about the vacation time claim and relied mainly on a vacation policy change that was poorly documented and not clearly explained. Thus, the court could not say that there was no genuine dispute of fact such that the FDIC was entitled to summary judgment.

The case is No. 23-cv-03703-JD.

Judge: Donato, J.

Attorneys: Diane Slater, pro se. Daniel C. Fleming (Wong Fleming) for the FDIC.

Companies: Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Cases: StateLawClaims Discrimination PayDiscrimination WageHour Exemptions Overtime RemediesDamages EmployeeLeave CaliforniaNews