Citation and posture
Hirdman v. Charter Communications, LLC., California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One. Filed August 4, 2025. No. D084304, Certified for Publication.
What the court decided
Labor Code § 246 (1) sets two methods for nonexempt employees and a separate method for exempt employees. For exempt employees, the statute permits calculation of paid sick time in the same manner as other forms of paid leave. The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer finding that outside salespersons are exempt employees for the purpose of calculating paid sick time.
Why the statute’s language controlled the outcome
The plaintiff, an outside salesperson, claimed his employer improperly classified him as an “exempt” employee for purposes of calculating his paid sick leave under § 246, subd. (1)(3) because the meaning of “exempt employees” includes only those employees who are exempt under Labor Code §515 (a) and Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 8 § 11040. The court found the statutory text unambiguous and that the statute did not depend on other statutes or regulations for interpretation or context. The Court found that the word “exempt” controls and it applies to all exempt employees, not just those classified as exempt under other administrative, executive or professional exemptions.
What the court did not resolve
- The opinion does not decide disputes about classification outside this record. If the worker is not truly an outside salesperson the nonexempt methods may apply.
- The opinion does not define every formula that qualifies as the same manner as other paid leave. That inquiry will likely depend on policy language and payroll configuration.
Litigation implications for both sides
For plaintiffs.
- Test classification with evidence of duties and locations. If the role does not meet the outside salesperson test, argue for nonexempt sick leave math under § 246(l).
- Ask for the paid time off policy for exempt roles. If that policy includes incentive pay in other leave calculations, it may bring those earnings into the sick leave rate.
- Tie damages models to the employer’s actual configuration, not to abstract averages.
For defendants.
- Confirm that the paid sick leave calculation for exempt roles mirrors the method used for other paid leave. Put the method in a policy that payroll uses.
- Preserve change logs that show when configuration settings moved. These logs will support a clean timeline and limit retroactive disputes.
- If the role is on the margin, resolve the classification question first. The sick leave method follows that result.
Discovery and proof
- Request the written paid time off policy for exempt employees.
- Request payroll system settings that show how other paid leave is calculated for exempt roles.
- For plaintiffs, obtain representative earnings records and commission statements to test any disconnects.
- For defendants, obtain declarations that describe the leave configuration and how it applies across exempt roles.
Mediation and valuation
- Use a defined sample size for earnings periods rather than a full historical pull.
- Run two models if classification is disputed. One model assumes exempt status. The other model assumes nonexempt status.
- Convert configuration evidence into clear tables that show how the sick leave rate was produced.
Closing thought
The Hirdman case turns on statutory text. The correct method flows from the classification and from how the employer calculates other paid leave for exempt staff. Tight policies and transparent data narrow the fight and support earlier resolution in these types of cases.