close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Officers and Directors Not Personally Liable in Overtime Cases, Ruling by CA Supreme Court

In an important victory for California officers, directors and managers, on August 11, 2005, the California Supreme Court held such individuals are not personally liable to employees for unpaid overtime. In Reynolds v. Bement, plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against his former company and its officers and directors alleging that they intentionally misclassified him and other employees as exempt from overtime pay in violation of the California Labor Code. The trial court and Court of Appeals had held that the individual corporate agents were not personally liable for unpaid overtime wages and dismissed them from the case. The California Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the individual defendants were not "employers" under the Labor Code.

The Labor Code provides employees with a private right of action to recover unpaid overtime wages against their employer. However, the relevant provisions of the Labor Code do not define who is an "employer." Plaintiffs argued that the Court should adopt the definition of "employer" in wage orders set forth by the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), which defines the term to include an individual who "exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person." In administrative proceedings, the Labor Commissioner applies this definition of "employer" when deciding whom to prosecute for violations of wage and hour laws. The Court, however, rejected the IWC's definition of "employer," concluding that the California Legislature did not demonstrate an intent to adopt the IWC's definition to expose corporate agents to personal civil liability in court under the Labor Code. The Court therefore held that plaintiffs may not sue the individual defendants for unpaid wages.

While the Reynolds decision is a significant victory for management, employers should be mindful that, although the process is cumbersome, an employee can enlist the help of the Labor Commissioner's office to seek civil penalties pursuant to the Labor Code's private attorney general provision (sometimes referred to as the "sue your boss law" or "bounty hunter law"). These penalties can, in some circumstances, be assessed against the individuals who made the decision to deny wages.

Further, employees may pursue individual corporate agents for wage claims under federal law, since the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), unlike the California Labor Code, defines "employer" to include individuals. (In a concurring opinion, Judge Carlos Moreno urged the California Legislature to adopt the FLSA's definition of "employer"). The FLSA, however, presents certain disadvantages to employees: a case brought under the FLSA is subject to removal to federal court, and the FLSA's substantive law generally is not as favorable to employees as California wage and hour law. Therefore, plaintiffs will now face a difficult choice in determining whether to proceed under state or federal law.

Although the Reynolds case is a positive development for employers and their corporate agents, employers should carefully comply with state and federal wage and hour laws to avoid liability for the company and the potential individual civil liability that remains (at least in the administrative arena) even after this decision.


This Fenwick Employment Brief is intended by Fenwick & West LLP to summarize recent developments in employment and labor law. It is not intended, and should not be regarded, as legal advice. Readers who have particular questions about employment and labor law issues should seek advice of counsel.

©2005 Fenwick & West LLP. All Rights Reserved.