[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-262185-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-262185-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","united-states-district-court-northern-district-of-california-findings-of-fact-and-conclusions-of-law","United States District Court Northern District of California - Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law","","Court findings of fact and conclusions of law in a wage and hour dispute between Ben Lopez and United Parcel Service, Inc. UPS classified Lopez as exempt from overtime under California law. The litigation addresses whether the On-Job Supervisor position fit the administrative exemption, after earlier jury findings on other supervisor roles and statute-of-limitations adjustments under the UCL for the remaining claim. Based on trial testimony, evidence, and arguments, the court concludes UPS met its burden and rules for UPS on the UCL claim.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/united-states-district-court-northern-district-of-california-findings-of-fact-and-conclusions-of-law/262185/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/united-states-district-court-northern-district-of-california-findings-of-fact-and-conclusions-of-law/262185.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Berry Peter","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-19","2026-09-14",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What claim was Ben Lopez bringing against UPS?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Lopez alleged UPS improperly classified him as exempt from overtime compensation under California law. The On-Job Supervisor portion was brought under California's Unfair Competition Law due to statute of limitations issues.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What did the On-Job Supervisor role involve?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The role was a special assignment tied to implementing a Preload Assist System, focused on improving efficiency and safety by studying, observing, and refining proposed delivery routes.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What was the court’s ultimate ruling?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The court found UPS met its burden to show Lopez’s On-Job Supervisor position fell within the administrative exemption and ruled in UPS’s favor on the UCL claim.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},262185,1789360057,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,114,118,123],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":126},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":128},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":129,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":22,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":26},1374402524268,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","United Sttees District Cou t  \nFor the Nor rr rnthe District of C orn aaa ornlil    \n1  \n2  \n3  \n4  \n5  \n6  \n7  \n8  \n9  \n10  \n11  \n12  \n13  \n14  \n15  \n16  \n17  \n18  \n19  \n20  \n21  \n22  \n23  \n24  \n25  \n26  \n27  \n28  \nCase 3:08-cv-05396-SI Document 268 Filed 09/14/10 Page 1 of 6  \nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA  \nBEN LOPEZ,  \nPlaintiff, v.  \nNo. C 08-05396 SI  \nFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW  \nUNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,  \nDefendant.  \n /  \nBACKGROUND  \nThis litigation concerns a wage and hour dispute between plaintiff Ben Lopez and defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) . Plaintiff contends that UPS improperly classified him as an employee exempt from overtime compensation under California law. Plaintiff brought suit in September 2008 based on his alleged misclassification in five full-time supervisor positions he held at UPS between March 2001 and June 2008: Hub Supervisor, Preload Supervisor, On-Road Supervisor, Training and Retention Supervisor, and On-Job Supervisor. A jury trial was held with respect to the first four positions in April 2010. The jury found that plaintiff was properly classified as exempt in the Hub Supervisor, Preload Supervisor, and Training and Retention Supervisor positions, and that although UPS did not meet its burden of proving that plaintiff was properly classified as exempt in the On-Road Supervisor, plaintiff had failed to prove that he worked any overtime hours or missed any meal breaks during his tenure in this position.  \nDue to statute of limitations issues, plaintiff’s claim with respect to the On-Job Supervisor position was brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., rather than under California wage and hour law. See Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., 155  \nUnited States District Court  \nFor the Northern District of California  \n1  \n2  \n3  \n4  \n5  \n6  \n7  \n8  \n9  \n10  \n11  \n12  \n13  \n14  \n15  \n16  \n17  \n18  \n19  \n20  \n21  \n22  \n23  \n24  \n25  \n26  \n27  \n28  \nCase 3:08-cv-05396-SI Document 268 Filed 09/14/10 Page 2 of 6  \nP.3d 284, 289 (Cal. 2007) (statutory wage claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations; penalty claims are subject to a one-year statute); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 (UCL claims subject to four-year statute) . The claim was tried to the Court on July 15, 2010. As set forth below in the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, on the basis of the testimony and evidence received at trial, the arguments of counsel, and the papers submitted, the Court finds that UPS has met its burden of proving that plaintiff was properly classified as falling within the administrative exemption in his OnJob Supervisor position. The Court therefore rules in favor of UPS on plaintiff’s UCL claim.  \nFINDINGS OF FACT  \n1. Plaintiff was employed by UPS as an On-Job Supervisor (“OJS”) from January 1, 2005 to July 31, 2005. For the entire period of his employment as an OJS, plaintiff was classified by UPS as exempt from overtime compensation.  \n2. The OJS position was a special assignment related to UPS’s implementation of a new Preload Assist System intended to improve UPS’s business operations by standardizing its package sorting and delivery operations. A key component of the Preload Assist System, and the one in which plaintiff participated, was to improve efficiency and safety in package delivery routes. To this end, other members of UPS management drafted proposed new routes which were intended to improve upon the existing routes.  \n3. Plaintiff’s primary role as an OJS was related to studying, observing, and further refining the proposed new delivery routes. His tasks included studying maps of package delivery routes, riding with delivery drivers to observe the routes in practice, and reporting back to the OJS team, which included other persons in plaintiff’s position, managers, and engineers.  \n4. Plaintiff rode with delivery drivers approximately three","cbCaitqa3c2P0P7V","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaitqa3c2P0P7V","pdf",161354,6,"English","# Background\n# Findings of Fact\n## On-Job Supervisor employment period\n## Role in Preload Assist System\n## Ride-alongs and route evaluation\n## Reporting and route refinement\n# Conclusions of Law","[{\"question\":\"What claim was Ben Lopez bringing against UPS?\",\"answer\":\"Lopez alleged UPS improperly classified him as exempt from overtime compensation under California law. The On-Job Supervisor portion was brought under California's Unfair Competition Law due to statute of limitations issues.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the On-Job Supervisor role involve?\",\"answer\":\"The role was a special assignment tied to implementing a Preload Assist System, focused on improving efficiency and safety by studying, observing, and refining proposed delivery routes.\"},{\"question\":\"What was the court’s ultimate ruling?\",\"answer\":\"The court found UPS met its burden to show Lopez’s On-Job Supervisor position fell within the administrative exemption and ruled in UPS’s favor on the UCL claim.\"}]","United States District Court Northern District of California - Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law | PDF"]