Confronting a novel issue of state law in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s 2012 decision addressing California’s meal-and-rest break requirements, an appellate panel of the California Court of Appeal’s Second District ruled that a security firm did not violate rest break requirements where its security guards were “on call” during the required
meal and rest
California Trial Court Applies Pro-Employer Brinker Decision to Deny Class Certification
As with the United States Supreme Court’s decision last year in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the employment law community eagerly awaits the impact of the California’s Supreme Court’s recent decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. on pending and new putative class actions alleging violations of California meal and rest period requirements. One early return favors employers, as…
California Supreme Court Rules Plaintiffs’ Attorney Cannot Recover Fees Under Labor Code Fee Shifting Provision in California Meal and Rest Lawsuits
California’s Supreme Court has again spoken on meal and rest period litigation, this time holding neither employers nor employees may recover their attorney’s fees in cases requiring employers to provide meal breaks and rest breaks. In the wake of its highly publicized Brinker Restaurant Corporation decision, where the Supreme Court ruled California law requires employers…
California Supreme Court Issues Highly Anticipated Ruling Regarding Meal and Rest Breaks
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 Court Finds State Meal and Rest Period Requirements Preempted by Federal Motor Carrier Regulation
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 …
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…
Detroit Federal Court Rejects Employee’s Attempt To Seek Recovery Based on Auto-Deducted Meal Break
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…
California Meal and Rest Period Compliance: Where Are We Now?
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…