Total Articles: 48
Is Rounding of Employee Time Entries Legal in California?--California Supreme Court Orders Appellate Court to Decide
In a matter of significance for California employers, in See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego, the California Supreme Court recently ordered the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, to review a trial court decision holding that rounding employee time entries violated California law.
State High Court Orders Review of Case to Clarify Legality of Rounding Timecard Entries - California Chamber of Commerce
The California Supreme Court directed the Fourth District Court of Appeal to review a case involving whether "rounding" time clock entries is lawful under California law. Federal law permits rounding, and the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement has permitted as a matter of policy, so long as the "rounding" evens out or favors the employee. A trial court recently ruled that a class action involving rounding could proceed against an employer, See's Candies. See's sought a writ in the Court of Appeal, which summarily denied the Petition. The Supreme Court, however, unanimously voted to Order the Court of Appeal to hear See's petition on the merits
Avoiding Liability For “Reporting Time Pay” and “Split Shifts” Verizon Defeats Employee Class Action
California employers are often befuddled by hypertechnical wage and hour rules. The Labor Code and related regulations offer little guidance while at the same time imposing much liability. “Reporting time pay” and “split shift pay” are two commonly misunderstood rules. A California appellate court has clarified the rules in a recent case titled Aleman v. Airtouch Cellular.
BRINKER UPDATE: SUPREME COURT RULING DELAYED
For more than 3 years, California employers have been anxiously awaiting a ruling from the California Supreme Court that is expected to clarify whether employers must guarantee employees take meal breaks or must only make meal breaks available. The answer to this question can mean millions of dollars to employers who are faced with costly class actions.
California Court Sets Limits for Reporting Time Pay and Clarifies When Split Shift Pay is Due
In a case of first impression, the California Court of Appeal has clarified the scope of an employer’s obligation to pay reporting time and split shift premiums under the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Order No. 4-2001 (“Wage Order”). The Court ruled that an employee was not entitled to reporting time pay for attending scheduled meetings that ran shorter than expected because he worked at least half the scheduled time, even though the employee worked less than two hours. This is contrary to the long-held enforcement position of the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. The Court also held an employee was not entitled to split shift pay because the employee’s total compensation exceeded the minimum wages required under the Wage Order. Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular, No. B231142 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2011). Finally, the Court dismissed a second employee’s claims as barred by a prior release agreement with the employer.
Court Finds Meal And Rest Period Rules Preempted For Some Employers
California law mandates that employers provide employees who work more than five hours with a 30-minute meal break prior to the sixth hour of work, and a second 30-minute meal period for employees who work more than 10 hours. Employees are also entitled to a 10-minute rest period for every four hours, or major portion thereof, worked. A recent court ruling held that these regulations are preempted by a federal law which covers motor carriers. Dilts v. Penske Logistics.
Brinker delayed
The Supreme Court is considering even more briefing in the Brinker case re meal and rest periods. So, they are going to delay the opinion past the normal 90 days from argument. Here is the order...
Federal District Court Holds Motor Carriers Are Not Subject to California's Meal and Rest Break Laws
A federal district court in California recently issued a decision, in Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122421 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011), holding that motor carriers that transport property are not subject to California's meal and rest break laws because such laws are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAA Act).
Brinker (Meal Period Case) Oral Argument
I am told there are lawyers who waited hours to get a seat at the California Supreme Court's hearing on Brinker v. Superior Court. It's called "Youtube." Look into it.
What Is the Duty to "Provide" a Meal Period? Oral Argument Before the California Supreme Court in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
The long awaited oral argument in the seminal meal and rest break decision involving Brinker Restaurant finally occurred today. Before a packed courtroom, lawyers for a hopeful class of waiters and waitresses and the representatives of California employers battled it out before the seven justices of the California Supreme Court.
In Surprising Decision Court Finds That The California Trucking Industry Does Not Have To Comply With California's Rest And Meal Break Laws
A federal judge in the Southern District of California handed down a significant legal victory to the trucking industry by ruling that California's meal and rest break laws are preempted by federal law. See Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLC (Oct. 19, 2011). The Court found that California's laws interfere with the price, route, or service of a motor carrier, which in turn impacts competitive market forces. It remains to be seen whether the Ninth Circuit will affirm or reverse this unique decision.
Back to Brinker: California's Meal Period Riddle Will Soon Be Answered
On November 8, 2011, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), 165 Cal.App. 4th 25 (2008), to determine whether, under California law, a company may simply "provide" employees with the opportunity for a meal period, or whether it must affirmatively "ensure" that those meal periods are taken.
Brinker!! Argument is 11/08/11
The California Supreme Court will hear arguments in Brinker v. Superior Court (see a bunch of posts here) regarding employers' obligations to provide meal periods. Argument is November 8 in San Francisco. I'm so excited, I need a rest period. Docket is here.
Take A Break: Meal and Rest Break Court Rulings Demand Caution From Franchise Employers
Almost five years ago, in April 2006, nearly 59,000 employees obtained class certification in a lawsuit claiming that Brinker Restaurant Group violated California labor laws by failing to ensure that its non-exempt employees took meal and rest breaks. In July of 2008, the appeals court vacated the class certification based upon a finding that employers need not ensure that meal and rest breaks are taken. The California Supreme Court then vacated the decision and granted review on October 22, 2008. Much to the chagrin of California employers and employees seeking clarity on the issue, the Supreme Court has yet to issue its ruling in Brinker Restaurant Group v. Superior Court.
Court Rules On Premium Payments For Denied Meal And Rest Periods
California law regulates meal and rest periods, requiring employers to provide their employees an unpaid 30-minute meal period after working for five hours, and a second meal period after 10 hours, with a 10-minute rest period for each four hours of work or major fraction thereof. Employees required to work through their breaks are entitled to a premium payment subject to a limit each day.
COURT APPROVES DAILY MEAL/REST PERIOD PENALTY OF TWO HOURS
It has been nearly three years since the California Supreme Court accepted the Brinker case to define the rules employers must follow in providing employees with meal and rest breaks under California law. In the meantime, costly meal and rest break class actions continue to be filed with an alarming frequency, exposing California employers to millions in damages.
Court of Appeal Reconsiders, but then Re-Affirms Case re Work Week
We previously wrote about Seymore v. Metson Marine here. Then we wrote an article covering it and other new wage-hour cases here. This was the case in which the court held that the employer could not set a workweek to start on a day when the employees did not begin the week.
Court Determines California Maximum Daily Penalty for Missed Meal/Rest Periods
Labor Code section 226.7 requires an employer who fails to provide an employee with a meal or rest period to pay that employee a penalty of one additional hour of pay (or premium payment) “for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.”
Court of Appeal: Meals and Breaks are Penalties for Attorneys Fees Law
Did you know the Labor Code permits employers to recover attorney's fees when the employer wins certain wage claims? It's true.
Court of Appeal: Up to 2 Meal / Rest Period Penalties Per Day
The Court of Appeal in UPS v. Superior Court decided that when an employee claims to have been denied both meal AND rest periods in a single day, s/he may recover two of the one-hour penalties made available under Labor Code Section 227.6.
Court of Appeal Upholds the Denial of Meal Period Class Action
While the world waits for the California Supreme Court to issue the fabled Brinker decision on meal periods, the courts of appeal continue to find that employers need only make available meal periods, and not force them.
New Exemption to the Meal-Period Requirement
On September 30, 2010, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill providing an additional exemption to the current meal-period requirements. Existing law requires that all employees in California, with certain exceptions, receive a meal break of at least 30 minutes beginning before the fifth hour of work. The new exemption will apply to employees in certain occupations or industries who are covered by collective bargaining agreements.
Reach of Employee's "Waiting-Time Penalties" Cut Off at Three Years.
The California Supreme Court clarified on November 18, 2010, that the statute of limitations period for a former employee's claim of "waiting-time penalties" under California Labor Code section 203 ("Section 203") is exactly three years. No more, no less. This is true regardless of whether the penalty claim is asserted by itself or whether it is asserted in conjunction with California's popular limitations-period enhancer, Business & Professions Code section 17200 ("Section 17200").
California Supreme Court: Waiting Time Penalties are...Penalties!
I know, sounds obvious. But folks were claiming that waiting time penalties, like meal period penalties, are a form of wage. They were making this argument to permit claims for waiting time penalties under California's unfair competition law, because that law has a four year statute of limitations.
NO NEED TO FORCE EMPLOYEE BREAKS, SAYS COURT OF APPEAL
What does it mean to provide employees with required meal and rest breaks? That employers must ensure or force employees to take them, or simply make them available to employees? While the law is relatively settled that employees need only be given the opportunity to take rest breaks, it is not clear whether this same standard applies to meal periods. Indeed, California employers eagerly await the California Supreme Courts determination of this question in Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) and Brinkley v. Public Storage. In the interim, the Court of Appeal recently decided a case addressing the meal period issue, Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
Legal Alert: Not Brinker, But A California Appellate Court Solves the Riddle - Employers Need Only "Provide" Meal Periods Not "Ensure" They Are Taken
For more than two years, we have been waiting for the California Supreme Court to answer the meal-period question that has clogged our court system with innumerable lawsuits. Must management simply "provide" the opportunity for meal periods or must they affirmatively "ensure" that those meal periods are taken? Well, our local appellate district is tired of waiting. Within the past week, our Court published its own opinion in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1853 (2010), ruling in favor of management.
Employers Who Win Meal and Rest-Period Claims Can Recover Fees and Costs
Employees and their attorneys have good reason to be more cautious in filing certain wage claims against employers. If they lose, they could be ordered to pay an employer's defense costs and attorneys' fees. California Labor Code 218.5 permits prevailing employers to recover their fees and costs for any "action brought for the nonpayment of wages."
WORK AROUND THE CLOCK.
Some people leave their jobs at the end of the day and do not even think about work until the next shift begins. Then, there is the rest of us. California's wage and hour laws are tricky, even as applied to workers on a traditional 9-5 schedule. The rules that apply to commuting, working at home, on-call time, and other incidental work performed during what is otherwise "free" time, vex even the wonkiest of employment lawyers.
Documentation Beyond Timekeeping Saves Dollars.
California employers continue to learn the hard lessons resulting from the failure to adequately keep time records or monitor off-the-clock activities. Timekeeping errors that occur systematically and continue unchecked can accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars in liability, not to mention potential penalties and attorneys' fees in defending class action complaints addressing such deficiencies. The failure to keep accurate time records almost certainly is the direct result of an employer's failure to train, retain, and monitor effective first line supervisors.
Travel Time Not Compensable; But After Hours Data Upload Should Be Paid.
As a general matter, employees are not compensated for regular commute time. But sometimes the line between commuting and on the clock driving may be hard to define. Moreover, it is not always clear whether an employee must be compensated for performing minor tasks before or after shifts. A recent case titled Rutti v. LoJack provides a good example of just how fuzzy the line can be.
California Court of Appeal Re-addresses a California Employer's Duty to Provide Meal and Rest Periods for its Employees.
Following on the heels of the California Supreme Court's decision to grant review in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, which interpreted California's meal and rest period requirements, a California Court of Appeal has re-addressed California's break requirements. In Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc. (10/28/08), the Court of Appeal determined: (1) employers must provide, but not ensure, meal periods for employees; (2) meal periods need not be provided within the first five hours of the shift (only that they be provided at some point during a shift of 6 hours or more); and (3) employers must provide, but not ensure, rest periods for employees.
Meal And Rest Period Decision to Be Reviewed by High Court.
Last July we reported on Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, an employer-friendly decision by a California Appeals court which addressed the legal standards under California's laws on meals and rest periods for employees.
California Meal and Rest Period Rules In Limbo---Again.
The California Supreme Court has granted review of a pro-employer meal and rest period case, Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court. The Court may take a year or more to mull over the matter; in the meantime, California employers are left guessing about this baffling aspect of labor law.
California Supreme Court Will Determine a California Employer's Duty to Provide Meal and Rest Periods for its Employees.
The California Supreme Court has granted review of the California Court of Appeal's decision in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, which interpreted California's meal and rest break requirements. As reported in our July 24, 2008 Legal Alert, the California Court of Appeal previously held that: (1) employers need only provide, not ensure, that rest periods are taken; (2) employers need only authorize and permit rest periods to be taken for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked (and that the rest periods are not required to be taken in the middle of the four hour period); (3) employers are not required to provide a meal period for every five consecutive hours worked; (4) employers need only provide, not ensure, that meal periods are taken; and (5) employers can only be held liable for employees working off-the-clock if the employer knew or should have known employees were doing so.
California - New Wage and Hour Ruling Welcomed by Employers.
The California Court of Appeal recently overturned a class certification order in a lawsuit brought by a group of hourly, non-exempt employees who claimed that they were denied rest and meal periods and were forced to work off the clock. In a key ruling, the court held that employers need not ensure meal breaks are actually taken, but need only make them available. The court also held that the employers practice of providing an early lunch within the first hour of an employees shift did not violate California law, even where the employee might then have to work in excess of five consecutive hours without an additional meal period. The court found such rolling five-hour meal periods to be inconsistent with the plain meaning of the Labor Code. In addition, the court found that employers are liable for off-the-clock work only if they knew or should have known employees were working.
MEAL AND REST PERIODS: BEST PRACTICES IN LIGHT OF BRINKER.
The California Court of Appeal recently rendered an opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) which addresses several heavily litigated meal/rest period issues. While employers obviously welcomed the clarification provided by the ruling, lively celebration may be a bit premature. First, the case may find its way to the California Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court grants review as many anticipate, the law pre-Brinker will apply until the high Court rules. Additionally, the Legislature could decide to take a stand on Brinker as part of the continued budget stalemate. In that case, we may end up with compromise legislation and an unanticipated new law.
California Appellate Court Fixes Meal and Rest Period Rules But Employers Might Wait To Change HR Practices.
In California, what is the employers obligation with respect to employee meal and rest periods? Must an employer force its employees to take these breaks, or is it enough to make them available for employees who are interested in taking them?
Appeals Court Decision Provides Clarity to Law Governing Meals and Rest Periods.
A California appellate court has handed down a long-awaited decision addressing legal standards for employee claims including meal and rest period violations. The court also overturned legal rulings regarding the employees' "off-the-clock" claims.
MEAL AND BREAK CLASS ACTIONS: ON THE BRINKER OF EXTINCTION?
The Court of Appeal's opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), ___ DJAR ____ (Jul. 22, 2008), addresses several heavily litigated issues regarding meal and rest period claims. If the decision withstands an anticipated petition for review to the Supreme Court, the court's opinion will sharply curtail class action litigation over alleged meal and rest period violations.
California Court of Appeal Clarifies Meal and Rest Period Requirements for California Employees.
In a win-win decision for employers, a California Court of Appeal has dramatically clarified the meal and rest period requirements for California employees, while simultaneously narrowing a plaintiffs ability to certify a putative class action based upon alleged meal and rest period violations.
Much Ado About Lunching
Effective Jan. 1, 2000, Assembly Bill 60 implemented a number of changes to California's wage and hour laws. Many employers and their lawyers focused on the statutory restoration of daily overtime pay, which the Industrial Welfare Commission previously had abolished in several of its Wage Orders. As it turned out, though, AB 60's sleeper issue was the relatively small section of the law devoted to meal periods. AB 60 codified existing regulations mandating meal periods. However, the Legislature determined that employers were not following the rules because there were no financial consequences. So, AB 60 included a requirement that employers pay one hour's wages to employees who were not given a timely meal period in accordance with the law.
California Court of Appeal Provides Some Hope to Employers Battling Meal and Rest Break Claims.
In a well-drafted, yet currently unpublished decision, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District (San Diego County) issued an order that, if published or followed in published decisions, will ease the tremendous burden currently placed on California employers related to meal and rest break claims. In Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Adam Hohnbaum Real Party in Interest) (October 12, 2007), the appellate court reversed the trial courts order certifying the class action based on the trial courts erroneous interpretation of the law.
Rest Break and Meal Period Claims After Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions.
The California Supreme Court decided earlier this year, in Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, that the one-hour premium employees receive for violation of meal break or rest period laws is a wage and not a penalty. Because the statute of limitations for unpaid wages is three years (or four years under an unfair competition theory), and the statute of limitations for penalties is only one year, Murphy means that multi-million class actions against state-wide employers are potentially three times more lucrative for plaintiffs and their lawyers. As a result, the plaintiffs bar continues enthusiastically to file class actions alleging violations of the meal and break laws.
Employers Must Comply With State Laws on Meal Breaks, Rest Periods
California employers must furnish employees with both rest periods, which are paid, and meal periods, which are not paid. These requirements first appeared in the Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders in 1916. But in 2000, the Legislature imposed on employers significant financial consequences for failure to comply with rest and meal period laws.
California Supreme Court Ruling Could Quadruple Potential Damages For Meal and Rest Period Violations.
The California Supreme Court has sent a shockwave through the California business community by ruling that premium pay issued to employees under California Labor Code section 226.7, to compensate them for missed meal and rest periods carries a three-year statute of limitations as opposed to a one-year statute of limitations.
California Supreme Court Classifies Pay for Missed Meal/Rest Breaks as Wages.
The California Supreme Court has held that missed-meal pay is wages and claims for failure to provide meal periods are subject to the three-year statute of limitations.
Employee's Travel Time Claim Fails (pdf).
The California Court of Appeal
recently held that the time employees
spend on an employer-provided shuttle
that transports them from a parking
lot to the work site is not compensable.
According to the court, since the employer
did not require employees to
take the shuttle, the time was not compensable
travel time.
Resolution May Be In Sight On California's Meal and Rest Break Issues.
On February 22, 2006, the California Supreme Court agreed to review one of the most hard-fought issues affecting California employers - are the monies owed to employees for missed meal and rest breaks considered "wages" and governed by a three-year statute of limitations, or are they "penalties" subject to a one-year statute of limitations? The California Supreme Court accepted review of this issue in the case of Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions.
