Oracle Corporation Slammed By Federal Court For Cheating Employees

Alicemarie_H._Stotler_District_Judge.jpg
Stotler
A high-ranking federal court handed good news today to California's labor pool.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has overturned an Orange County Republican federal judge who'd granted Oracle Corporation summary judgement against employees who claimed the company had systematically cheated them.

According to the federal panel, Santa Ana-based U.S. District Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler, appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, misapplied California labor law designed to prevent companies from avoiding overtime pay.

The 12-page opinion written by Judge William A. Fletcher noted that both the Ninth Circuit and the California Supreme Court believe that Stotler, a former Orange County deputy district attorney, had erred by siding with Oracle's practice of refusing to pay overtime to certain employees who were required to travel extensively across the nation and work longer than 40 hours a week.

The ruling wasn't a total victory for the cheated employees, however. Fletcher and his colleagues said their opinion applies only to wages the company avoided paying for work performed in California.

Oracle, a multinational corporation with annual revenues topping $36 billion, provides computer hardware and software services.

--R. Scott Moxley / OC Weekly

My Voice Nation Help
4 comments
Jim Stalewski
Jim Stalewski

Not all of the three summary judgments were overturned by the 9th circuit.  One was affirmed in full.  Isn't telling only part of the story, deliberately leaving out key bits of information, one of the many ways to lie?  Of course, full disclosure would not support the inflammatory statement that the judge "... sided with Oracle's practice of refusing to pay overtime ..." would it?

The alleged party affiliation of the federal judge on the case is irrelevant.  What is the party affiliation of the ninth ciruit panel who affirmed one of the summary judgments, and who appointed those justices to the court of appeals?  That is just as relevant as the alleged affiliation of the judge on the case, and who appointed her to the bench.

The only thing that is relevant is whether or not they followed the rule of law in a fair and impartial manner.  Judges are not perfect and their judgments are overturned or remanded all the time, but that does not mean they are necessarily biased - it just means they made a mistake.  For you to imply lack of impartiality based on party affiliation, simply because she erred interpreting the law of the case on two of the three counts, in the opinion of the 9th circuit panel, is shameful. 

It is possible for this to go past the 9th circuit, because they are not perfect either, and their decision may be overturned as well.  If that happens, how will you report on that event?  I'm guessing you'd point out all the foibles of Clarence Thomas and highlight the latest speaking engagement of Justice Roberts, but speak in glowing terms about Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion, if you follow the pattern established in this report.

bigpicture
bigpicture

Oh No! there have never been any bribed judges, there have never been any sent to prison for taking under the table graft.  They are as pure and white as the driven snow.  So don't try and make it seem impartial and pure interpretation of the law.

public bizmail
public bizmail

Jim,

Please post again.  Make your meaning clear in the opening 25 words

 Your current post is the very model of an unconvincing, opaque blog post.

 Are you a lawyer who doesn't get out much?

Bill T.
Bill T.

Um, possibly an honest judge, if no compensation passed as a result of the judgement she apparently stayed bought. Or possibly honest in her pendejismo, she didn't need to be paid to be anti-little guy. In any case appears to be a pendeja, I'm just quibbling.

Now Trending

Anaheim Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Fashion

Loading...