Wage and Hour Law Update : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Jackson Lewis Law Firm : Minimum Wage, Overtime & Service Contracts

While states generally are free to enact wage and hour laws providing greater protections than contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act, sometimes such laws run afoul of federal statutes governing particular industries. In a recent decision exemplifying this type of preemption, a judge in the United States District Court of the Southern District of California ruled that the oppressive meal and rest break provisions of the California Labor Code (which will be clarified by the California Supreme Court following oral argument on November 8), conflict with and are preempted by the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAA), because the state requirements interfere with interstate commerce. Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122421 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011). This is a significant victory for industry employers as class action lawsuits alleging violation of these requirements have been prevalent in California.

Dilts concerned the meal and rest statute’s interference with the FAAA provision providing that “a State . . . may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.” Id. at * 13 quoting 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1).  California’s strict meal and rest break laws, which the Court characterized as fairly rigid, force drivers to alter their daily routes while searching out appropriate places to pull off the highway and park their vehicles, preventing them from making some daily deliveries. Allowing California to “insist exactly when and for exactly how long carriers provide meal breaks for their employees would allow other states to do the same, and do so differently,” Judge Janis L. Sammartino observed. Id. at * 27.

Navigating the maze of federal, state and local regulation of wage-hour laws is never easy, particularly in heavily regulated industries such as trucking or aviation. Employers in these industries must monitor the status of the law to determine how best to comply with potentially competing provisions on the state and federal level. This decision points that the first step of any analysis is first to determine a statute or regulation’s enforceability.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As noted by our colleagues at http://www.californiaworkplacelawblog.com/, California’s highest court has scheduled oral argument in the Brinker Restaurant Corporation litigation, addressing the state’s meal and rest requirement, for November 8, 2011.  By rule, the Court must issue its decision within 90 days of oral argument, or, by February 6, 2012.  The decision should provide long-awaited clarity on the issue of whether employers must “ensure” meal periods are taken or whether they must only be made “available,” which has spawned years of expensive litigation both prior to and following the Court of Appeal’s 2008 ruling in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008), the California Supreme’s Court’s acceptance of the appeal and consolidation with other Court of Appeal cases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a long awaited decision, California’s Supreme Court has ruled that the State’s Labor Code provisions governing overtime pay may apply to non-residents working in California for “a California-based employer.” Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 4th 1191 (2011). A detailed analysis of the decision and its potential implications is available here.

California wage-and-hour practitioners and commentators continue to await the California Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the scope of the Labor Code’s “meal and rest” requirements in Brinker Restaurant Corp.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In this post, we discussed two different courts’ analyses of hospital plaintiffs’ attempts to seek conditional certification of their claims that they were not paid for allegedly working meal periods due to the employers’ use of an auto-deduct for meal periods. In an opinion addressing such a claim on the merits (as opposed to the lower standard applicable to determining appropriateness of conditional certification of an FLSA collective action), a  Detroit federal court rejected, on summary judgment, such an assertion. Deppen v. Detroit Med. Ctr., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78247 ( E.D. Mich. July 19, 2011).

In Deppen, the plaintiff nurse anesthetist claimed that the use of an auto-deduct for meal breaks, coupled with the fact that supervisors recorded employees’ time, demonstrated that she was not paid in a compliant fashion for 30 minute meal periods deducted per shift. After observing that defendant had demonstrated there were numerous work weeks where plaintiff either: 1) did not work over 40 hours (thus had no claim for gap time under the FLSA as discussed in this post); or 2) was overpaid for time she did not work, the court went on to determine the plaintiff had failed to “meet her burden showing that she performed substantial duties and spent her meal time predominantly for [the hospital’s] benefit.” Id. at *18 citing Myracle v. General Electric Co., 1994 U.S. App LEXIS 23307 (6th Cir. Aug. 23, 1994). The court further observed there was “adequate staffing to cover the patient caseload and allow the OB CRNA’s to take their meal breaks.” 

Wage/hour plaintiffs continue to regularly allege that automatic, systemic practices, such as an auto-deduct for meal periods or payment based on a set schedule such as 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, run afoul of the FLSA and applicable state laws. While potentially defensible, such policies and practices will always expose employers to greater risk of an allegation that wages paid did not correlate to actual hours of work. Employers should scrutinize such practices closely, and take additional measures to ensure compliance as necessary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As every California employer knows, wage and hour class actions in California are never-ending.  One basis for many of these class actions has been employers' alleged non-compliance with California meal and rest period requirements.  As to meal periods, the two overriding issues have been whether an employer is required to ensure non-exempt employees take their meal period or just offer such an opportunity and whether such meal period must be taken prior to completion of 5 hours of work.   This issue has significant financial ramifications to California employers as California law imposes a penalty of 1 hour of wages for each day an employee misses a meal period and for each day an employee misses a rest period.  The California Supreme Court is currently reviewing these issues in two consolidated cases and is expected to schedule oral argument in the coming months.  Once oral argument before the court occurs and the court hands down its decision within 90 days thereafter as required by California law, we hope there will be some clarity on these issues.

Robert Pattison, Managing Partner of Jackson Lewis' San Francisco office, has prepared a white paper discussing these issues in detail.  This white paper, which includes a statutory analysis and a discussion of the shifting positions of the State Labor Commissioner, can be accessed at this link. Most importantly, Jackson Lewis suggests that to ensure compliance pending this decision, California employers continue to ensure that no non-exempt employees works more than 5 hours without taking a meal period.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link