Court Opinion

ID: 9905474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:01:14.78553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:42.539941
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 29 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEX LARSSON, an individual,                    No.    22-35478

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00950-MO

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company
registered to do business in Oregon as a
foreign LLC; TRIBRIDGE HOLDINGS,
LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company;
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION,
a Nevada corporation registered to do
business in Oregon as a foreign corporation,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Oregon
                  Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

                    Argued and Submitted November 13, 2023
                              Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and BAKER,** International
Trade Judge.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The Honorable M. Miller Baker, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
      Alex Larsson, a former software salesperson at DXC Technology Services,

appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to DXC on his unpaid wage

claims.

      Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we recite only

those facts necessary to resolve this appeal: Larsson agreed to an Incentive

Compensation Plan that outlined some additional “standard” compensation he

could expect to receive beyond his base salary. The Plan provided for proportional

incentive payment for every level of sales, with the proportion increasing after a

salesperson surpassed the standard or expected quota. Incentive compensation was

paid within 90 days after the end of the quarter against which it was measured, and

an employee had to remain at DXC until the payment was made to receive it—but

Larsson left DXC in January, after the end of the quarter but prior to payment. The

district court, applying Martin v. DHL Express (U.S.A.), Inc., 234 P.3d 997 (Or. Ct.

App. 2010), granted summary judgment for DXC, holding that the incentive

payment was a bonus that an employer may condition on continued employment.

See Walker v. Am. Optical Corp., 509 P.2d 439, 442 (Or. 1973). Reviewing de

novo, see Evanston Ins. Co. v. OEA, Inc., 566 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 2009), we

reverse and remand.

      Applying Martin, we conclude that the incentive payments were a “regular

part of a [DXC] salesperson’s compensation” because (1) Larsson received some

                                          2
incentive pay for selling even one percent of his “quota,” and (2) such payments

were not intended to reward “performance . . . above and beyond what is usually

expected.” 234 P.3d at 1001–02. Once sales were made, the payments were not

contingent in any sense and were not akin to a bonus under the Martin factors.

Thus, the payments were “due and owing” at the end of the quarter in which they

were earned. Or. Stat. §§ 652.120; 652.140.

      Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the district court to determine

whether and to what extent Larsson may be entitled to penalty wages under Or.

Stat. § 652.150 and attorneys’ fees under Or. Stat. § 652.200.1

      REVERSED AND REMANDED.

1
  Because we decide this case based on a straightforward application of existing
Oregon caselaw, we decline Larsson’s invitation (Dkt. 16) to certify questions to
the Oregon Supreme Court.

                                         3