More confusion - again, I'm an hourly & exempt retaik manager in CA, put on suspension on Saturday - this morning, store manager calls me at home and says there's a change of plans. Instead of me returning to work on Wednesday at 2pm, per original plan, I am to be apart of a conference call lead by a District Manager - at the same time, however, I'm supposed to be "at home to receive a package." I'm not return to work on Wednesday.

Is this actualy legal? Again, I've never heard of such a thing, for myself or anyone else. Advise?

You cannot be hourly, exempt, and in retail. One or more of those have to be untrue. It is possible to be hourly and exempt, but not in retail. If you are being paid hourly and you are in retail, you are non-exempt.

However, as to the circumstances you describe, yes, that is legal. They do not have to bring you back to work unless it was contractually agreed; they can require that you participate in a conference call; they can require that you be available to receive a package. None of those things are illegal.

It sounds like you are going to be terminated.

Also, your question implied that you have had prior discussion on this in other threads. Perhaps you expect that everyone has your prior threads memorized. Perhaps you expect that everyone will hunt around and look for those prior threads. Perhaps you are mistaken in these expectations. There is some advantage to just keeping all related posts in the same thread.

-----

Not your question, but there is legally no such as as a "hourly exempt retail manager". There are few types of exempt employees paid on a hourly basis, but none of them work retail.

The day of the conference call and waiting for the "package" are counted as hours worked.

In California:

47.5.4 Controlled Standby. If the employee’s time is so restricted that they cannot pursue
personal activities and come and go as he pleases, the employer is considered to have
direction and control of the employee. The DLSE has adopted the test which the
California Supreme Court announced in the case of Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of
Madera (1984) 36 Cal.3d 403, and will apply that test to determine the extent of control.

46.1 Under the basic definition set out in a ll of the IWC Orders, “Hours Worked” means
the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and
includes all of the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not
required to do so. (e.g. Order 1-2000, § 2.(H ).) Where it is determined that the
employee’s time is subject to the control of the employer, as in the contexts delineated
below, the time constitutes “hours worked”.

46.1.1 The DLSE Interpretation of Hours Worked which provides that: “[U]nder
California law it is only necessary that the worker be subject to the ‘control of the
employer’ in order to be entitled to compensation” was found by the California
Supreme Court to “be consistent with [the Court’s] independent analysis of hours
worked.” Morillion v. Royal Packing Co. (2000) 2 2 Cal.4 th 575, 584 [citing to DLSE O.L.
1993.03.31 and 1994.03.03].