Slater v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Background

Diane Slater worked as a bank manager for First Republic National Bank until 2018. She sued the bank over several California employment claims. The case moved from state court to arbitration and then to federal court after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed receiver for the bank in 2023. The FDIC removed the arbitration and separately removed the original state-court case; the federal court closed the related case as duplicative. Slater’s lawyer later withdrew, and Slater proceeded without a lawyer.

The FDIC sought summary judgment on all of Slater’s claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the moving party shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a material factual issue. The court granted and denied the motion in part.

Equal Pay

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the FDIC on Slater’s California Equal Pay Act claim. The record showed that Slater’s salary was comparable to, and in several instances higher than, the salaries of male employees in the same job classification. Although Slater asserted that at least one unnamed male employee doing similar work earned more, she provided no supporting evidence and did not show that the employee performed substantially similar work under similar conditions.

Unpaid Overtime

The court denied summary judgment on Slater’s claim for unpaid overtime under California Labor Code section 510. The FDIC argued that Slater was exempt from overtime rules because she worked as a Preferred Banking Office Manager and managed a branch office. But the FDIC did not provide evidence showing that Slater spent more than half of her work time performing exempt duties. Slater stated that she spent about 90 percent of her time on non-executive tasks, including teller and new-account duties. The court found a genuine factual dispute about whether the exemption applied. It also found a factual dispute about whether the FDIC knew that Slater worked overtime.

The court limited the overtime claim to wages from September 14, 2017, through September 14, 2018, based on the applicable three-year limitations period and the dates of Slater’s lawsuit and termination.

Waiting-Time Penalties

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the FDIC on Slater’s claim for waiting-time penalties under California Labor Code section 203. That claim required evidence that the employer willfully failed to pay wages. Slater provided no evidence that the FDIC acted willfully; she argued only that she should receive penalties if she prevailed on the overtime and other claims. The court ruled that unsuccessful defenses alone do not establish the required willfulness.

Meal and Rest Periods

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the FDIC on Slater’s meal- and rest-break claims under California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512. Slater said she skipped breaks because of understaffing, customer demands, and a desire to avoid unnecessary overtime. The court found no evidence that the FDIC pressured or coerced her to give up breaks. An email from her supervisor directing her to ensure that employees received 30-minute lunch breaks also undermined an inference of coercion.

Unreimbursed Business Expenses

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the FDIC on Slater’s claim for unreimbursed business expenses under California Labor Code section 2802. Slater identified purchases including kitchen supplies, food, candy, dog treats, fans, heaters, ladders, and tool kits, but provided no evidence that they were necessary business expenses or were incurred because of her job. She also provided no documentation showing when she made the purchases or how much she paid. The opinion states that Slater appeared to have been paid for claimed “Eagle lunches.”

Vacation Pay

The court denied summary judgment on Slater’s claim for unpaid vacation pay under California Labor Code section 227.3. Slater said that she gave up scheduled vacations to cover for sick coworkers and handle other office demands, and that she had accrued vacation time. The court found the FDIC’s discussion of the claim and a change in its vacation policy unclear and poorly documented. Because the record was underdeveloped and contained a factual dispute, the FDIC was not entitled to summary judgment.

The court ruled that the claim was timely and that Slater may seek all vested but unpaid vacation time, rather than only vacation accrued within the four years before she filed suit.

Unfair Competition

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the FDIC on Slater’s claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The claim sought restitution of unpaid overtime wages and equal-pay amounts. Because the equal-pay claim had been resolved against Slater, only overtime restitution remained. The court concluded that Slater had not shown that an award of overtime backpay would be inadequate, or that equitable restitution would provide a more complete remedy.

Trial and Remaining Proceedings

The court vacated the October 17, 2025 trial and all remaining pretrial dates because of current circumstances affecting federal court operations. A status conference was set for December 11, 2025. The claims remaining for trial were limited to one year of unpaid overtime wages and accrued vacation time. The parties were ordered to attend a settlement conference before Judge Laurel Beeler, with each side required to have full settlement authority.