By Michael Kun
Yesterday, only weeks after its long-awaited Brinker v. Superior Court decision, the California Supreme Court issued another important ruling on California meal and rest period laws.
In Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that neither party may recover attorney’s fees on claims involving meal and rest periods. The Court analyzed the legislative history of the meal and rest period provisions and concluded, “We believe the most plausible inference to be drawn from history is that the Legislature intended [meal and rest period] claims to ...
By Michael Kun
This morning, the California Supreme Court has just issued its long-awaited decision in the Brinker case regarding meal and rest period requirements. It is largely, but not entirely, a victory for employers. A copy of the decision is here.
A few highlights of the decision:
On rest periods, the Court confirmed the certification of a rest period class because Brinker’s written policy arguably did not comply with the law as to the second rest period in a day. In so doing, it clarified when employees are entitled to rest periods:
- Employees are entitled to 10 minutes’ rest ...
Recent Updates
- Executive Order 14398 Survives Preliminary Challenge: What Contractors and Subcontractors Should Know with Respect to DEI
- How Employers Can Manage Shorter EEOC Charge Response Deadlines
- Menopause as a Protected Class: Growing Trend or a Hot Flash?
- The Second Circuit Joins Fellow Circuits in Extending Limitations on Mandatory Arbitration Agreements
- Updating Your First Aid Kit: What Employers Need to Know About Opioid Antagonist Requirements in New York