| Legal ForumsRegisterSign inBankruptcyBusinessCriminalEmploymentFamilyImmigrationReal EstateMore... | ChatUpcomingArchiveHelpAsk a LawyerMost Recent Q&AAsk a QuestionAsk a Lawyer Archive |
| State Law and AgenciesU.S. ConstitutionFederal Courts & LawsU.S. Small Claims CourtTraffic Violations in Your StateFederal Government AgenciesLegal DictionaryFree Case Law Research |
"While McCausland assisted the salespeople he managed in making sales,ultimately, those sales were directly attributable to a salesperson, and not McCausland. In other words, McCausland's commissions were not directly linked to his own efforts. Moreover, the commissions were not based on gross sales, but on 'net sales' which required a calculation of not only the gross sales but also other reductions, such as discounts and returns, which McCausland had little control over. ...Because McCausland's commissions were based on the efforts of his sales team and "net sales,' and the commissions could not always be calculated within the statutorily mandated ten-days, we conclude that the commissions were not 'wages' within the meaning of the Wage Payment Statute."
McCausland also received three types of bonuses: a Gross Profit Bonus in
2005, a
Sales Achievement Bonus in 2005, and a Cost Bonus in 2006. The court found that
all three of the bonuses depended on facts other than the employee's efforts. the Gross Profit
bonus was based on the overall financial success of the employer (its increase in profits), the
Sales Achievement Bonus was dependent on McCausland's district team's efforts, and his Cost
Bonus depended on the ability of his sales team's efforts to control expenses in their
district. The court thus concluded again that none of the bonuses were "wages" as
that term is defined in the Wage Payment Statute.
