As discussed in Bowles Law Report Volume 8, Issue 3, California courts have differed on what it means to “provide” hourly, exempt-from-overtime workers their meal and rest breaks. Until the California Supreme Court clarifies labor laws on breaks, we advise employers to err on the side of caution and require workers to take all applicable meal breaks.
California Labor Code Section 226.7 requires employers to pay non-exempt employees an additional hour of pay for each meal or rest period the employer fails to provide. In August 2007, the California Supreme Court found this additional pay fit the legal definition of “wages” and was thus subject to a three-year statute of limitations. See Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc.
For example, if a full-time non-exempt employee was misclassified as exempt-from-overtime and thus consistently did not take her uninterrupted thirty minute meal breaks, she can file a claim for one additional hour of pay for each missed meal period going back three years from the date of her claim. Multiply this by a number of employees and the cost for employers can be exorbitant.
California employers are currently awaiting further clarity from the California Supreme Court as to what break labor laws define as “providing” meal breaks. The issues are (a) whether they must ensure their workers’ meal breaks are taken without fail, such as by literally policing their employees and enforcing meal breaks; or (b) whether they simply need to make meal breaks available to their staff without necessarily verifying staff actually took those breaks.
The uncertainty should be resolved once the California Supreme Court rules on Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court. Although both sides have submitted their written arguments (briefs), as of March 12, 2010 the Court has yet to set oral argument. The Court has 90 days to issue its ruling after that argument date.
In the interim, employers should take all reasonable measures for ensuring non-exempt workers actually take timely, uninterrupted meal periods. Such measures include:
If you have any questions, please contact me or any of our other employment law attorneys. Best, Cindy Bamforth.
If you are an employer facing possible litigation, or have an employee issue on which you need immediate guidance, call us to set up a consultation, or submit your message.
NOTE: Use of this website does not make one a client of the Law Offices of Timothy Bowles (“Firm” or “Bowles Law”). Establishing an attorney-client relationship and the confidentiality that comes with it depends on the Firm’s prior confirmation that no factor, including any conflict of interest (for example, our representation of another party adverse to you), exists to prevent that establishment. If you have confidential information that you would like to provide a Bowles Law attorney, please communicate directly to one of our attorneys, in person, by telephone, email, fax or other written means. Do not use this website to offer or communicate confidential information about any legal matter.