Abrishamcar v. Oracle

Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian and Ho, and Valerian Law represent Oracle sales representatives 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, the plaintiffs seek to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations on behalf of sales representatives in California.

The plaintiffs 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. Plaintiffs believe 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 this lawsuit included 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 multiple phases of trial began. In February 2024, the Court issued final statements of decisions finding Oracle liable for violating the California Labor Code

On April 7, 2025, the parties reached agreement on a $15.5 million settlement. The Court approved the settlement in May 2025.

Marcella Johnson v. Oracle America, Inc.

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

Plaintiff 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.