Ninth Circuit Withdraws Sullivan v. Oracle Decision Applying California Labor Laws To Non-California Residents
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.20.09
On February 17, 2009, a panel of the Ninth Circuit issued an order withdrawing its controversial opinion in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008). In withdrawing its opinion, the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to decide the following issues raised in Sullivan:
- Does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week?
- Does Business & Professions Code § 17200 apply to the overtime work described in question one?
- Does § 17200 apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state employees in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act?
In a decision that had drawn significant criticism from the business community, a panel of Judges Fletcher, Gould and Pollak held in Sullivan that California's overtime requirements apply to work performed by non-California residents within the state, even if such work was only performed on a temporary basis. After the decision, Oracle filed a petition for rehearing en banc, supported by amicus briefs filed by the California Employment Law Council, the California Restaurant Association, and the Employers' Group.
In withdrawing its opinion and requesting guidance from the California Supreme Court, the panel of Ninth Circuit judges noted the practical significance that these questions will have on California employers. It stated that "[a] large but undetermined number of California-based employers employ out-of-state residents to perform work in California. If those workers are covered by the overtime provisions of the California Labor Code, this will have an appreciable economic impact on these employers and employees."
All employers with employees who are based outside of California but may travel to California for projects, training or other work should stay tuned for the forthcoming guidance from the California Supreme Court.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance

