Jackson Lewis coverage of the California Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), No. S166350 (Calif. Apr. 12, 2012), addressing the requirements of that State’s meal and rest break statute, California Labor Code § 226.7, is available here.
california supreme court
Sullivan v. Oracle Confirmed As California Law by Ninth Circuit
In August, we discussed the California Supreme Court’s ruling addressing the circumstances under which a non-California resident can be covered by that state’s employee-friendly Labor Code. Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 4th 1191 (2011). Yesterday, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit adopted the state court’s ruling, rejecting Defendant’s constitutional challenges…
Clarity to California’s “Meal and Rest” Requirement Coming In 2012
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…
California Supreme Court Finds Out of State Employees Who Perform Work in California May Be Covered by California Labor Code
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…
California’s Highest Court Rules That Employees Do Not Have A Private Right of Action Under Tip Misappropriation Statute
As analyzed in more detail here, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that the California labor code provision prohibiting employers from taking or sharing in tips left for employees by customers – Cal. Lab. Code § 351 (“Section 351”) – does not provide private litigants with a right to sue their employers directly…