Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP | 20th Anniversary 2004 - 2024
Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP | 20th Anniversary 2004 - 2024

Oracle Commissions Wage & Hour Lawsuits

Case name: Maryam Abrishamcar and Kavi Kapur v. Oracle America, Inc.
Case type: Wage & Hour
Filed in: Superior Court, County of San Mateo
Case No.: 535490 (Cal. Super.)

Case name: Marcella Johnson v. Oracle America, Inc.
Case type: Wage & Hour
Filed in: JAMS—San Francisco
Case No.: 1100087724

Case Summaries

  • Abrishamcar v. Oracle

Sanford Heisler Sharp, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, and Valerian Law represent plaintiffs Maryam Abrishamcar and Kavi Kapur in a commission wages lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

The lawsuit was filed on September 18, 2015 under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), wherein “aggrieved employees” may file a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other employees for employer violations of the California Labor Code. Under PAGA, Ms. Abrishamcar and Mr. Kapur seek to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations on behalf of sales representatives in California.

Ms. Abrishamcar and Mr. Kapur are former sales representatives at Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) who assert that Oracle has engaged in unlawful practices against sales representatives by failing to comply with laws governing commission agreements and failing to pay sales representatives all earned commissions on a timely basis. Plaintiff believes that Oracle has failed to provide commissioned sales representatives signed compensation plans that set forth the method by which their commissions are actually calculated and paid. In addition, through the use of a long and confusing set of Terms and Conditions issued to each sales representative with his or her compensation plan, the Complaint alleges that Oracle unlawfully and retroactively reduced the commissions of sales representatives based on grounds, criteria, and methods not defined in a signed commission contract. Oracle also imposed an illegal confidentiality agreement on its sales representatives as a condition of employment, according to the Complaint.

On April 4, 2018, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication of issues, finding that Ms. Abrishamcar is an “aggrieved employee as to whom Defendant Oracle violated California Labor Code Section 2751 by failing to provide Plaintiff with a signed commission agreement.”

In January 2019, the first of three phases of the trial began. During the first and second phase of trial, the Court found Oracle liable for violating the California Labor Code.

On December 19, 2022, before the start of the third phase of trial to decide penalties, the Court denied both defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the “individual” PAGA claims and defendant’s motion to dismiss all representative PAGA claims.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery regarding the extent of PAGA penalties.  The final phase of trial is expected to occur in 2024.

  • Marcella Johnson v. Oracle America, Inc.

In pleadings filed in the case Marcella Johnson v. Oracle, Plaintiff-Claimant Johnson alleged that Oracle America, Inc. shortchanged sales employees millions in earned commission wages by retroactively changing commission contracts.

Plaintiff-Claimant specifically asserted: Oracle retroactively increased quotas or decreased commission rates on past sales so that it paid sales employees less than what the existing compensation plans require. Oracle “re-planned” employees to reduce commissions earned on completed sales going back to any time of Oracle’s choosing, sometimes to the beginning of the same fiscal year and even earlier. When it “re-planned” employees after commission wages had already been paid, Oracle clawed back prior payments by withholding newly earned commissions until the employees had paid the company back or else threatened a collection. By reducing and withholding commissions in this fashion, Oracle’s commission policies and practices violated numerous California Labor Code requirements, and Oracle engaged in unfair business practices.

In March 2019, a Ninth Circuit panel upheld plaintiff’s motion to compel Oracle to engage in arbitration. The decision stemmed from a petition to compel arbitration that Johnson filed after Oracle refused to participate.

We are currently seeking more information from current and former Oracle sales representatives on the procedure and terms of their commission pay.

If you are a current or former Oracle sales representative and are interested in learning more about claims you may have against the company for unpaid commissions, please contact Sanford Heisler Sharp at [email protected] or (646) 681-7373.  Alternatively, you can use the link below to submit a contract request.

Attorneys Involved in the Case

Press Releases