2033 N Main Street
Suite 720
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
P 925.944.9700   F 925.944.9701

The Importance of Documentation

February 1, 2019

In a recent California Court of Appeals decision, employers are reminded that a lack of documentation can hinder their ability to defend against an employee claim for additional compensation.  In the case of Furry v. East Bay Publishing, LLC, the Court of Appeal held that if an employer fails to keep accurate records of an employee’s work hours, even “imprecise evidence” by the employee “can provide a sufficient basis for damages.”  Importantly, the dispute in Furry was with regard to damages, not the underlying wage and hour claim.

In Furry, the employee was classified as exempt and, thus, did not track the hours that he worked.  The employer did not challenge the ruling of the trial court that found that the employer had failed to prove that Furry was properly classified as exempt.  Due to the fact that the employee had been classified as exempt, the employer did not require him to document the hours that he had worked.  As such, when the employee made an overtime claim, the employer lacked any evidence of the hours that the employee had actually worked.

The Court allowed the employee’s memory to satisfy his initial burden of proving that he performed work for which he was not paid and to show the amount and extent of that work.  The burden then became the employer’s to show evidence of the precise amount of work performed.  The employer could not.  Thus, in the absence of the availability or even existence of accurate time records, the court drew what it classified as reasonable inferences from the employee’s evidence of the hours he worked.

This case also underscores the courts’ expectation that employers maintain general documentation in an employee file.  This includes obligatory legal documentation, i.e., I-9’s, and documentation of performance and discipline.  Akin to the burden shifting that took place in Furry, an employer in a wrongful termination case that is claiming that it terminated an employee for a non-discriminatory or retaliatory reason, should have documentation to support its defense.  Without it, courts are apt to give an employee’s “imprecise evidence” the benefit of the doubt.

Authored by:

BROTHERS SMITH LLP provides its clients, professional advisors and its friends with up-to-date reports on recent developments in business, real estate, employment, estate planning and taxation.

CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE – Pursuant to rules and regulations imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding tax penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.

The summary which appears above is reprinted for information purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be considered legal advice nor substitute for obtaining legal advice from competent, independent, legal counsel. If you would like to discuss these matters in more detail, please feel free to contact us so that we can provide the clarification and resources you need to make effective decisions.


2033 N Main Street
Suite 720
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
P 925.944.9700   F 925.944.9701