When a California nonexempt employee is not provided a meal or rest period, Cal. Labor Code 226.7 requires an employer to pay a penalty to that employee in the amount of one hour of that employee’s “regular rate of compensation.” It was an open question whether an employee’s “regular rate of compensation” meant the employee’s … Continue Reading
One can only imagine the outcome the plaintiffs’ attorneys were anticipating: a case against the financial industry, involving non-exempt employees subject to an auto-deduct policy for meal periods, in the Southern District of New York. It seems like a laundry list of many types of claims that have been certified, and they no doubt expected … Continue Reading
In the wake of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012) (see our post on the decision), cases refusing to certify rest and meal period have become far more common as a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Central District of California … Continue Reading
What a difference a year or two can make in class action litigation. On March 10, 2010, the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, California certified a class of 13,000 employees in a series of consolidated cases asserting California rest and meal period claims against global security giant Wackenhut. Wackenhut Wage and Hour Cases, Judicial … Continue Reading
We have previously wrote about the recent success of California trucking companies defeating California meal and rest break claims by arguing that the laws are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). Specifically, Esquivel v. Vistar Corp., No. 2:11–cv–07284–JHN–PJWx, 2012 WL 516094 *6 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012) (discussed here), and Dilts v. … Continue Reading
Sometimes, when a heavily hyped movie arrives in theaters, the tremendous business it generates can have a negative effect on all the other surrounding films. For example, The Avengers landed in American cinemas on May 4, 2012. Since that time, not only has it racked up astronomical box office figures of its own (in fact, … Continue Reading
It’s bad enough that a plaintiff’s attorney loses a motion to certify a class – it must be even worse when the reason the motion is denied is the attorney’s own failure to plead his case properly. A recent California court of appeals decision affirmed the denial of a California meal and rest break class … Continue Reading
A Decent Ruling, But Not All It Could Be Rest and meal period class actions have vexed California employers and outsiders trying to conduct business in California for several years. Even a minor violation is argued to cascade into an array of class-wide claims that have been used to extract tens or hundreds of millions … Continue Reading
Employers Prevail on Duty to Provide Meal Periods; Mostly Good on Certification “We will decide no case before its time.” Alright, that’s not really the California Supreme Court’s motto, but it certainly did take its time deciding the Brinker case. During the three and a half years the case was pending before the state Supreme … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), seems to be taking hold in meal and rest period cases in California, as shown by two decisions handed down this month. The most recent casualty of the holding in Dukes is Cortez v. Best Buy Stores, LP, Case No. … Continue Reading
Plaintiffs frequently include collective action allegations in even run-of-the-mill FLSA cases. What if an employer concludes, however, that no matter how frivolous the underlying claim, the defense costs will be more than even an oversized settlement? In theory, an offer of judgment under Federal Rule 68 would be one avenue. By offering the plaintiff all … Continue Reading
The obligation to provide rest and meal periods has vexed California employers since its inception. While few employers would quibble with the notion that employees should have reasonable time off during work for breaks and meals, the language of the applicable wage order and its interpretation by some courts may create severe problems and class action claims. Central … Continue Reading